| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
N2EY says, "Think about *why*. Then as now, raising taxes was political
suicide." Yep, Clinton committed suicide. He even made it retroactive to before he took office. Nobody noticed and they reelected a corpse. Jim is just sooooo full of ..it. |
Jim says, "The funny thing is that even after the Gennifer Flowers
incident, Hillary *believed* him." bb says, "Jim, do you believe all lies, or just that one?" |
David, my purpose here is not to make you happy. Get over yourself.
Thanks. |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/29/2004 6:04 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: Date: 12/28/2004 1:59 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: .com Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . com K4YZ wrote: N2EY wrote: Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people making the same money and living together. Which was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Ronald "family values" Reagan. Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He enacted a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the bee-jeebers out of us. WHOA! Let's look at exactly what happened in that time period! First off, the govt. started deficit spending in the '60s to pay for LBJ's "Great Society", the Vietnam war, and the "space race". This deficit spending and other fiscal changes resulted in rising inflation and interest rates. Nixon and Ford tried to fight inflation with price and wage controls. (Remember "WIN buttons"?). Didn't work - all that it did was delay the problem and make it worse. Ironic, then, that the last time the federal budget was balanced was during the Nixon administration, isn't it...??? In 1973 we got the OPEC boycott, and when it ended gasoline prices were doubled. Which affected *all* energy costs, and all businesses that use energy, and fed inflation like - throwing gasoline on a fire. We see that now...Price a gallon of milk or a pound of a decent cut of beef lately? Exactly. Again, it's part of the tail that the healthcare hound dog get's to chase. And MANY of the "maladies" that patients suffer is due to seeing "Doc A" about one problem and "Doc B" for another. I'm not in the health care field, but even I know about drug interactions. Whenever I go to the doc, there's always a form allowing release of medical info to other healthcare personnel and institutions "just in case". I always agree and sign it, on the theory they should have the info and I have nothing to hide. That's because you're smarter than the average bear, BooBoo, and probably have "real insurance" that requires your PMD to manage your care. Naw, just common sense. THERE'S your problem! (said with a wink and an acknowledging grin) YOU actually USE it...These other folks are just looking to get what they can just BECAUSE they can. Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the intestinal tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...??? Round and round.... Getting dizzy yet? I have always believed that if I am to be the kind of Nurse that I want to be, I must advocate for the patient, but I must also educate the patient as to what is in their best interests (realizing, of course, that you can't make that horse drink...) even when I am telling them something they may not want to hear. I am absolutely amazed at the numbers of people (even many "educated" people) who will look you in the eye as you're trying to give them the information they need to make the best decision, yet will start if off with somethig like "Yeah, well, My Aunt Jenny said...". Of course Aunt Jenny's NOT a health care person, but since what Aunt Jenny said IS what they want to hear, the effort was just wasted...Of course Mr Nephew or Ms Neice will be back in the ER in short order wondering why they aren't feeling any better. Inappropriate ER usage dropped by 53% and collections improved by a quantum leap because we weren't wasting time on what were charity cases. No one didn't get to see a doctor, either, since the local docs would work out payments for the truly indigent. Then the ACLU got involved. We were "inconvieniencing" the patients. @#$%^! Much better! =) Of course you were inconveniencing them! Being responsible for oneself is inconvenient! I don't know why...! ! ! ! (In reality, I do, but I'd "offend" a lot of those idiots who won't do it!) Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to be..."Security" for people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders ticket to the Pot-O-Gold. What about people who really are disabled? What about them? Have I said "No Social Security for ANYone", Jim? No, but your statement above limits it to retired/elderly people only. No mention of the disabled. What were you saying a few lines back about common sense, Jim...?!?! I believe all my comments were about getting the UNDESERVING off the dole...NOT those with a legitimate need. Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every enrollee. And legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement periods. We have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that people carry their own weight. That's a start. But who gets to make the critical judgements, as in Person A is really disabled but Person B isn't? Medical Review Boards. Make these people show up at a prescribed time with copies of their records in hand. Makes sense. Of course those Boards will be under constant attack and lawsuits by those denied benefits. A cottage industry will arise to specifically challenge their rulings. No doubt. Step three might be "bounties" for persons accused of and subsequently found guilty of fraud. I think that was done, too. I think a bounty of 10% on cheaters would be an adequate incentive. Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole section of the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of bilking assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure and a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour. That's a bit hazardous. If someone was convicted of fraud but then later won on appeal, they'd go after the paper and the agencies in a big way for "distress" and "defamation". I am sure that we could establish adequate parameters to ensure that those with reasonable doubt could be excluded. And someone willing to play the game might not be that humiliated. I know I would be. I feel bad enough getting pulled over for having a heavy foot! (Thank God for "Emergency" tags and that Star-of-Life insignia!) I recall that in some places there were anti-prostitution efforts that focused on the *customers* rather than the *workers*, so to speak. Pictures and names in the paper and all. I dunno how well those programs fared. -- This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Point and set. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Jim says, """All of whom were too busy fighting Commies and going to
the moon to notice that the Japanese and Europeans were quietly but steadily getting ahead in their industrial capabilities.""" Jimmy wasn't fighting commies. Jimmy wasn't going to the moon. Maybe Jimmy served his country by quietly rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII, with American tax money, so that they had more modern manufacturing methods than did the USA. Or maybe he worked for a no-bid contractor? No, I don't think that was it, either. How is it that Jimmy has so many opinions about things that he was never involved in? |
Steve said, """Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I
remember. He enacted a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the bee-jeebers out of us.""" The 17.5% was a maximum for certain ranks, not an overall raise. BTW, you are a recipient of that raise. It just might have been the 1st Peace Dividend; the US Government making peace with the anti-war, anti-draft protesters (J.F. Kerry) by withdrawing from Vietnam, ending the draft, and invoking a RIF. |
In article , "KØHB"
writes: Should there be bold caution labels affixed to all inhalers warning that "ONLY TAME AND PLATONIC SEX IS ALLOWED WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT"? Hans, Isn't "PLATONIC SEX" an oxymoron? Like "tight slacks", "jumbo shrimp", "nondairy creamer", etc.? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
bb wrote:
David, my purpose here is not to make you happy. Get over yourself. Thanks. Glad to know what your purpose isn't. Perhaps you could add to the list that your purpose isn't to be particularly coherent. Dave K8MN |
Why?
|
bb wrote:
Why? Because you're a clod. Dave K8MN |
|
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: snip Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He enacted a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the bee-jeebers out of us. WHOA! Let's look at exactly what happened in that time period! First off, the govt. started deficit spending in the '60s to pay for LBJ's "Great Society", the Vietnam war, and the "space race". This deficit spending and other fiscal changes resulted in rising inflation and interest rates. Nixon and Ford tried to fight inflation with price and wage controls. (Remember "WIN buttons"?). Didn't work - all that it did was delay the problem and make it worse. Isn't it amusing that the most left-wing socialist utterly failed fiscal policy was implemented by *which party*? Think about *why*. Then as now, raising taxes was political suicide. I thought that party had the market on morals cornered. Morally, you do what is right, even if it is political suicide. And frankly, I don't think raising taxes is always going to do you in. At the federal level, perhaps taxes have been cut for some, but my state and local taxes have risen to where I am paying much more than before. Ever have your mortgage escrow deduction go up several times in one year? In 1973 we got the OPEC boycott, and when it ended gasoline prices were doubled. Which affected *all* energy costs, and all businesses that use energy, and fed inflation like - throwing gasoline on a fire. Carter inherited that mess from his Republican predecessors - who had inherited the elements that started the mess from their Democrat predecessors. All of whom were too busy fighting Commies and going to the moon to notice that the Japanese and Europeans were quietly but steadily getting ahead in their industrial capabilities. Well, we were fighting things and going places when we were building our manufacturing capabilities, so while I believe those examples you cited were a drain of money, I do not believe that the money saved would have gone into manufacturing infrastructure. It certainly would not have in this day and age. Investors (in the broad sense) today do not have much of a sense of anything beyond the next quarter. They do not care if closing a plant down here and moving it offshore has a bad effect on the nation, as they can make more money. Ask one about the idea of building new factories and hiring American workers and making less money than if they were to do it the other way. You'll be laughed at. It is only the money. And before people say "Well DUH!" and think I'm an idiot, lets look at what elimination of our infrastructure will do to us. Unless there are not going to be any more wars, there will come a time when we will *need* that infrastructure and need it badly. At that point, our only chance will be to try to build a new infrastructure and build it damm quickly. Think about what will happen if most of our imports are shut off. At least some investors were able to make some extra profit. I still say that investors need to show a little morality too. Taxes were raised to keep the deficit from going even higher. At a time of high interest rates, a high deficit can cause a runaway situation because you need more and more money just to pay the interest on the loans. You don't necessarily need high interest rates, Jim. They can suppress the inflation for a little bit, but only a year or two. What I meant was that if interest rates are high, much of the money coming in as taxes goes right back out again to pay the interest on the debt. Those taxes don't fund any government programs at all, they simply make the loanholders richer and the taxpayers poorer. I'm noticing inflation nipping at the edges of my purchases. Where I get Breakfast at McD's they have raised the prices by 10 percent I gave up the Golden Arches years ago. this week. My XYL's flooring suppliers have announced a 20 percent hike effective 1/1/2005. Part of that is due to Florida, of all things. The destruction caused by the hurricanes has caused prices of most building materials to rise. I'm in the process of buying a new garden shed and some fencing, and the supplier has had to tack on a surcharge because of the increased prices of lumber. No doubt lumber is involved, but she deals in carpeting, tile and concrete board mostly. This is no surcharge, it is permanent price increase People that think that we can support a virtually unlimited deficit coupled with tax cuts *without* inflation are the same people that thought that there was a new paradigm afoot in the stock market during the late 90's. Sort of. The old boom-bust cycle isn't a law of nature. But the fact that you eventually have to live within your means *is*. If you continue to spend more than you make, you eventually go bankrupt. It's that simple. Despite all we do, all the adjustments, all of it, we can not ignore a fundamental rule. It's as true as gravity. One way that it comes out is inflation. Money becomes worth less over time, because it is being created without anything to back it. Or to put it another way, money production exceeds real production. It's gross national product. Any country has only so much. If they print so much money that there is more money than GNP, then the money automatically adjusts to the GNP. Sounds oversimplified, but it works. And deficit spending is just that. We've avoided runaway inflation so far, but as I noted, it has begun. Oddly enough, inflation is ultimately the enemy of the rich and the would-be rich. That's because it eats up investment. bummer, that I remember a time when you could have a very nice middleclass life on $10,000/yr. Which meant that if someone could get about $200,000 in investments yielding 5%, they'd be set. Today you need five to ten times that amount for a comparable lifestyle. In many cases, people's ability to save and invest is outstripped by inflation. So they get into the mindset of borrow, enjoy and spend *now*, rather than save for later. And in 1979 we got another OPEC boycott and another doubling of gasoline prices. So don't blame Jimmy Carter without also blaming those who came before him. Blaming Carter for high inflation is simply so incorrect. Here is another case of words and actions differing. Here you have an honest and honorable man who was president at a difficult time in American history, when we struggled to pay back those Moonshot and War expenses, and yet he is ridiculed as a weak and ineffective president. Absolutely true. Don't forget the "Great Society" funding, too. So much for "Character counts" !!! History will probably be much kinder to JC than so many of us are now. Consider the Middle East. Carter was able to get Israel and Egypt to sign the Camp David accords, which have held for more than a quarter century. An agreement between longtime enemies in a part of the world where an agreement that lasts a week is a big deal. And even though the agreement cost the Egyptian president his life, and cost Israel a lot of territory, it has held up. Nobody before or since was able to get a Middle East agreement like that. But Carter is remembered by many for the Shah of Iran fiasco rather than for the Camp David accords. btw, the main reason Carter allowed the Shah to enter the USA (which event so angered the Iranians that they took over the embassy in Tehran) was that Henry Kissinger advised him to do it. Okay, then how about remembering his successor for the Beirut fiasco. BTW, remember what our get tough stance with those terrorists was? And the fact remains that married couples who both work pay *more* federal income taxes than if they weren't married. That "marriage penalty" was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Reagan. If the Republicans are truly for "family values", why is the penalty still there? It amounts to serious money, not just a few dollars. When actions and words differ, I rely on actions. Unfortunately, it seems too many people rely on the words these days. Makes 'em very easy to manipulate. Yep. Didja see my stuff about which states have the highest and lowest divorce rates, and how that correlates to red vs. blue? Talk versus action in action! snip Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the intestinal tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...??? Round and round.... I think that maybe it is Darwinism in action. Too bad we have to footthe bill. We foot it in more ways than money, too. snip Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole sectionof the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of bilking assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure and a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour. That's a bit hazardous. If someone was convicted of fraud but then later won on appeal, they'd go after the paper and the agencies in a big way for "distress" and "defamation". Steve, does your mug shots include people who steal money from the Social security program? Well, do you support this, Jim? Guess whose faces we would see on that sunday edition! And someone willing to play the game might not be that humiliated. It won't work. In this day and age, there are people willing to humiliate themselves to get on programs such as Jackass, The Swan, Survivor, (pick a theme) Jerry Springer, or any of the other television shows that allow idiots to get their visage on TV. There might be people lined up to do this. I disagree about "The Swan" but agree about all the rest. I recall that in some places there were anti-prostitution efforts that focused on the *customers* rather than the *workers*, so to speak. Pictures and names in the paper and all. I dunno how well those programs fared. This usually fails. Some of the people who frequent those prostitutes have deeep pockets, and aren't in a position to be affected by public shame. You mean like that actor who used to "date" Elizabeth Hurley? (btw, when did the word "date" become a euphemism for "have sex with"?) There was a so-called Christian group semi-locally who were taking pictures of license plates of people parked at adult book stores (do they actually sell any books?) That usually goes on until they get sued, and of course invariably someone is caught that ends up being an embarrassment to the fundies. Like that TV preacher? Absolutely! Some of these people know they have certain tendencies, and often try to control them by going into certain vocations, and then rail on about whatever they may feel tempted to do. Then they get caught. See also my post about divorce rates. Also where certain shows like the much-criticized "Desperate Housewives" have the highest ratings). I'm starting to form a new theory about the relation between the way the country is going and these worthless programs........ This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Jim, that is a *major* stretch, almost as if I were to say that *any* message here is on topic, as well as any reply I make because my primary mode is PSK31, which involves typing, and all these messages are typed! 8^) I don't see it as a stretch at all. You and Steve will never change each others minds about this political stuff. Maybe not, but neither will we allow mistakes by the other to go uncorrected. This sounds like you are agreeing with his all out offense against LenOver21? If nothing else, you two have brought out that neither party has a lock on fiscal responsibility, ethics, honesty, big picture thinking or any of the other qualities we (should) look for in our leaders. Agreed! But in some ways it's even simpler than that. Consider the presidential elections since 1979... In each case, did the candidate who demonstrated the most intelligence win? I say no - not in *any* case. Clinton versus Dole? Regardless of Clinton's shortcomings, he has a very powerful mind. And despite some other posters ideas, I'm restricting this to the presidents, not their spouses. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers I have to ask... What's COPD stand for? who smell of cigarette smoke, "back pain" patients who exacerbated their "disabling" back pain while riding their motorcycle or out drinking all night, or diabetics who present in DKA who refuse to comply with their MD's plan-of-care. OK, fine - but let's take that a step farther.... The consensus of opinion among all the MD's I've talked to says the following as a general plan-of-ca 1) Do not use illegal drugs of any kind 2) Do not use tobacco of any kind 3) Get your weight down to at least where the charts say "average" 4) Eat a healthy diet 5) Use seatbelts, helmets, eye/hearing protection and all other protective devices where appropriate How many people do all 5 consistently? How much public and private money is spent because so many people don't? People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that "we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans. The problem is, how do you differentiate those groups when they show up in the ER? Here is one for ya Jim: People who engage in risky behavior, such as rock climbing, bungee jumping, contact sports, mountain climbing, skateboarding, and other dangerous activity are doing so with knowledge of their potential injury/death. Why should society have to foot the bill when one of these idiots gets injured and can no longer support themselves. They made a presumably sober decision to do this. note that this is a little tongue in cheek, but I do have a bit of a moral issue with this. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kindly stop reading my messages. Thank you.
|
N2EY says, "Think about *why*. Then as now, raising taxes was political
suicide." Yep, Clinton committed suicide. He even made it retroactive to before he took office. Nobody noticed and they reelected a corpse. Jim is just sooooo full of ..it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm saddened that Jim has so much to share, and so much of it is wrong. |
Oh. I forgot to call you a jerkwad.
BOL. bb |
Hey, Len. Happy New Year.
I think it's been about a decade since I joined you on RRAP. I think Jim/KH2D was exiting at that point, and I never did see his stuff on RRAP. I guess time flies when your fighting bad guys. I thought things were actually turing around lately, but the closet libs decided it was time to exit the closets after the election. I guess MoveOn dot Org gave them the strength to belittle their fellow man. Rich people know more than everyone else. In your face and all that. Anyway, I've responded to several of the Mike/Jim postings of late, and I'm really saddened that we have such sorry-assed citizens. Jim sorely wants to compare America to a falling Roman Empire, and with all of the help that he can muster, it just might come true. I'd like to kick his liberal behind, but I'd end up getting butt-f***ed by his constituents at the county workhouse when it was all over with. I sure wish he'd invite them over to his house for a New Year's Eve party so they could get all of the hedonism out of their systems. Oh, well. What can you expect from people who have absolutley ***nothing*** invested in America? Yellow magnet ribbons on their trunks??? Yep, they support the troops. Hi, hi!!! Yellow magnets!!! Support America when it really didn't matter. Oooh Ahh and all that. Wonder how many gallons of desalinated IO water they've drank in their lifetimes? Oh, never mind. Kelly is gonna jump in here with all his military experince. Har de har, har. |
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , "KØHB" writes: Should there be bold caution labels affixed to all inhalers warning that "ONLY TAME AND PLATONIC SEX IS ALLOWED WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT"? Hans, Isn't "PLATONIC SEX" an oxymoron? Like "tight slacks", "jumbo shrimp", "nondairy creamer", etc.? Freudian slip? Picking phrases such as "tight slacks" and "jumbo shrimp" and "nondairy creamer?" in the same sentence? :-) Tsk. You guys are looking for love in the wrong places... Let me know the Part 97 paragraph equating "sex" with amateur radio... :-) |
Lenof21 Jan 2, 11:29 am show options
Let me know the Part 97 paragraph equating "sex" with amateur radio... Sorry, Your Creepiness...That's a Church of St Hiram Bloodbrother Secret. If ya ain't a member, you don't get to find out. You ain't a member...So you're just going to have to pout. Steve, K4YZ |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers I have to ask... What's COPD stand for? who smell of cigarette smoke, "back pain" patients who exacerbated their "disabling" back pain while riding their motorcycle or out drinking all night, or diabetics who present in DKA who refuse to comply with their MD's plan-of-care. OK, fine - but let's take that a step farther.... The consensus of opinion among all the MD's I've talked to says the following as a general plan-of-ca 1) Do not use illegal drugs of any kind 2) Do not use tobacco of any kind 3) Get your weight down to at least where the charts say "average" 4) Eat a healthy diet 5) Use seatbelts, helmets, eye/hearing protection and all other protective devices where appropriate How many people do all 5 consistently? How much public and private money is spent because so many people don't? People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that "we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans. The problem is, how do you differentiate those groups when they show up in the ER? Here is one for ya Jim: People who engage in risky behavior, such as rock climbing, bungee jumping, contact sports, mountain climbing, skateboarding, and other dangerous activity are doing so with knowledge of their potential injury/death. One could include risky activities like dealing with high voltages, climbing towers and other structures to raise antennas, etc. One could include *not being underweight*. Believe it or not, I have heard a researcher prescribe just this for everyone. And what about gray areas. My ice hockey is an incredible aerobic activity. This is good. But it is also a lot of high speed physical contact with people armed with clubs. Not so good, and I have had numerous injuries while playing. Why should society have to foot the bill when one of these idiots gets injured and can no longer support themselves. They made a presumably sober decision to do this. OK so far. note that this is a little tongue in cheek, but I do have a bit of a moral issue with this. What moral issue? Here's how it works: The moral issue is that eventually those insurance companies and the people who would control us will do just that. Eventually, people that engage in "risky activities" will find themselves uninsurable. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it carries no physical risk" Insurance companies have developed ways to figure out the risk factors and how they affect the chances those behaviors will result in payouts. And they affix surcharges to their premiums to compensate. For example, life insurance policies usually have a "tobacco rate" and a "no tobacco rate". Homeowners' policies usually require an extra-cost rider if you have a pool. Etc. Same principle could be applied. To everything. It is like the health industry wanting to get hold of every possible test that could predict what we are likely to expire of so that they don't have to insure us for that. -- Now here's a disturbing trend to consider: One of the newest ideas in health care is the "specialty hospital". These are for-profit non-teaching medical facilities, often owned by the docs who work there, that focus on particular illnesses. Cardiology is a favorite. The trick is that they do not accept any federal or state reimbursement - private insurance only. So they don't have to follow govt."guidelines" in many areas. They don't have ERs and they don't accept "walk-ins", only referrals with good insurance. So.... I know...... VOUCHERS to the rescue!!!!! So what they get are the pick of the patients - those who can pay, are compliant, and who have good documentation. They don't have to cost-shift, so their prices are competitive. Guess what happens to the "regular" hospitals? I wonder when we are going to get back to debtor's prisons again..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers I have to ask... What's COPD stand for? OK, fine - but let's take that a step farther.... The consensus of opinion among all the MD's I've talked to says the following as a general plan-of-ca 1) Do not use illegal drugs of any kind 2) Do not use tobacco of any kind 3) Get your weight down to at least where the charts say "average" 4) Eat a healthy diet 5) Use seatbelts, helmets, eye/hearing protection and all other protective devices where appropriate How many people do all 5 consistently? How much public and private money is spent because so many people don't? People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that "we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans. The problem is, how do you differentiate those groups when they show up in the ER? Here is one for ya Jim: People who engage in risky behavior, such as rock climbing, bungee jumping, contact sports, mountain climbing, skateboarding, and other dangerous activity are doing so with knowledge of their potential injury/death. One could include risky activities like dealing with high voltages, climbing towers and other structures to raise antennas, etc. One could include *not being underweight*. Believe it or not, I have heard a researcher prescribe just this for everyone. You mean everybody should be underweight? I agree - it's been shown scientifically to be healthier. And what about gray areas. My ice hockey is an incredible aerobic activity. This is good. But it is also a lot of high speed physical contact with people armed with clubs. Not so good, and I have had numerous injuries while playing. I've been a runner for more than 23 years and I've yet to have a running-related injury that required medical care. Why should society have to foot the bill when one of these idiots gets injured and can no longer support themselves. They made a presumably sober decision to do this. OK so far. note that this is a little tongue in cheek, but I do have a bit of a moral issue with this. What moral issue? Here's how it works: The moral issue is that eventually those insurance companies and the people who would control us will do just that. Eventually, people that engage in "risky activities" will find themselves uninsurable. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it carries no physical risk" Yep. Insurance companies have developed ways to figure out the risk factors and how they affect the chances those behaviors will result in payouts. And they affix surcharges to their premiums to compensate. For example, life insurance policies usually have a "tobacco rate" and a "no tobacco rate". Homeowners' policies usually require an extra-cost rider if you have a pool. Etc. Same principle could be applied. To everything. It is like the health industry wanting to get hold of every possible test that could predict what we are likely to expire of so that they don't have to insure us for that. And that's where the right to privacy comes into play. Also freedom from discrimination - if a person't susceptibility to a certain disease is due to heredity and not their own choice, that is. We already have this sort of thing in other areas. Consider the building industry. If you want to put up almost any structure that people will live or do business in, you have to meet the applicable building and safety codes. Otherwise you won;t be able to get the required permits, loans, or insurance. Even if you want to modify your own existing building, not following the codes can get you in big trouble, legally and financially. For example, if you do your own wiring but don't follow the code, and your house burns down because of it, your insurer can usually refuse to cover the loss. -- Now here's a disturbing trend to consider: One of the newest ideas in health care is the "specialty hospital". These are for-profit non-teaching medical facilities, often owned by the docs who work there, that focus on particular illnesses. Cardiology is a favorite. The trick is that they do not accept any federal or state reimbursement - private insurance only. So they don't have to follow govt."guidelines" in many areas. They don't have ERs and they don't accept "walk-ins", only referrals with good insurance. So.... I know...... VOUCHERS to the rescue!!!!! At first I didn't understand what you meant. Then it dawned on me about private-school vouchers... So what they get are the pick of the patients - those who can pay, are compliant, and who have good documentation. They don't have to cost-shift, so their prices are competitive. Guess what happens to the "regular" hospitals? Just like parochial and private vs. public schools... I wonder when we are going to get back to debtor's prisons again..... I wonder if some folks ever *really* understood Dickens' little book? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers I have to ask... What's COPD stand for? OK, fine - but let's take that a step farther.... The consensus of opinion among all the MD's I've talked to says the following as a general plan-of-ca 1) Do not use illegal drugs of any kind 2) Do not use tobacco of any kind 3) Get your weight down to at least where the charts say "average" 4) Eat a healthy diet 5) Use seatbelts, helmets, eye/hearing protection and all other protective devices where appropriate How many people do all 5 consistently? How much public and private money is spent because so many people don't? People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that "we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans. The problem is, how do you differentiate those groups when they show up in the ER? Here is one for ya Jim: People who engage in risky behavior, such as rock climbing, bungee jumping, contact sports, mountain climbing, skateboarding, and other dangerous activity are doing so with knowledge of their potential injury/death. One could include risky activities like dealing with high voltages, climbing towers and other structures to raise antennas, etc. One could include *not being underweight*. Believe it or not, I have heard a researcher prescribe just this for everyone. You mean everybody should be underweight? I agree - it's been shown scientifically to be healthier. And what about gray areas. My ice hockey is an incredible aerobic activity. This is good. But it is also a lot of high speed physical contact with people armed with clubs. Not so good, and I have had numerous injuries while playing. I've been a runner for more than 23 years and I've yet to have a running-related injury that required medical care. Tsk. 23 years and you've never heard of Jim Fixx' "Complete Book of Running." Fixx died of a heart attack...while out running. Why should society have to foot the bill when one of these idiots gets injured and can no longer support themselves. They made a presumably sober decision to do this. OK so far. note that this is a little tongue in cheek, but I do have a bit of a moral issue with this. What moral issue? Here's how it works: The moral issue is that eventually those insurance companies and the people who would control us will do just that. Eventually, people that engage in "risky activities" will find themselves uninsurable. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it carries no physical risk" Yep. And in here, if anyone is against morse code testing, they are told to bug off and go have a stroke. Insurance companies have developed ways to figure out the risk factors and how they affect the chances those behaviors will result in payouts. And they affix surcharges to their premiums to compensate. For example, life insurance policies usually have a "tobacco rate" and a "no tobacco rate". Homeowners' policies usually require an extra-cost rider if you have a pool. Etc. Same principle could be applied. To everything. It is like the health industry wanting to get hold of every possible test that could predict what we are likely to expire of so that they don't have to insure us for that. And that's where the right to privacy comes into play. Also freedom from discrimination - if a person't susceptibility to a certain disease is due to heredity and not their own choice, that is. Brain-deadness isn't necessarily a disease, nor is the attitude some folks to have thinking a policy pub is a neat lil Chat Room all for them to talk about anything...because they are here all the time. :-) We already have this sort of thing in other areas. Consider the building industry. If you want to put up almost any structure that people will live or do business in, you have to meet the applicable building and safety codes. Otherwise you won;t be able to get the required permits, loans, or insurance. Building codes are quite different from morse codes. :-) Morse code can be removed yet amateur radio won't fall down. Even if you want to modify your own existing building, not following the codes can get you in big trouble, legally and financially. For example, if you do your own wiring but don't follow the code, and your house burns down because of it, your insurer can usually refuse to cover the loss. Are you afraid U.S. amateur radio will fall down if morse code testing is removed. Now here's a disturbing trend to consider: One of the newest ideas in health care is the "specialty hospital". These are for-profit non-teaching medical facilities, often owned by the docs who work there, that focus on particular illnesses. Cardiology is a favorite. The trick is that they do not accept any federal or state reimbursement - private insurance only. So they don't have to follow govt."guidelines" in many areas. They don't have ERs and they don't accept "walk-ins", only referrals with good insurance. So.... I know...... VOUCHERS to the rescue!!!!! At first I didn't understand what you meant. Then it dawned on me about private-school vouchers... So, it's no longer about politics in here or the national economics, all are supposed to talk about the School Systems? So what they get are the pick of the patients - those who can pay, are compliant, and who have good documentation. They don't have to cost-shift, so their prices are competitive. Guess what happens to the "regular" hospitals? Just like parochial and private vs. public schools... Tsk. You are so parochial. I wonder when we are going to get back to debtor's prisons again..... I wonder if some folks ever *really* understood Dickens' little book? I'm SURE you will now take two weeks and give us a dissertation right from Jimmie's Compleat Book of Dickens. Prolly beats Jim Fixx... Jimmie is such a little dickens... |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers I have to ask... What's COPD stand for? OK, fine - but let's take that a step farther.... The consensus of opinion among all the MD's I've talked to says the following as a general plan-of-ca 1) Do not use illegal drugs of any kind 2) Do not use tobacco of any kind 3) Get your weight down to at least where the charts say "average" 4) Eat a healthy diet 5) Use seatbelts, helmets, eye/hearing protection and all other protective devices where appropriate How many people do all 5 consistently? How much public and private money is spent because so many people don't? People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that "we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans. The problem is, how do you differentiate those groups when they show up in the ER? Here is one for ya Jim: People who engage in risky behavior, such as rock climbing, bungee jumping, contact sports, mountain climbing, skateboarding, and other dangerous activity are doing so with knowledge of their potential injury/death. One could include risky activities like dealing with high voltages, climbing towers and other structures to raise antennas, etc. One could include *not being underweight*. Believe it or not, I have heard a researcher prescribe just this for everyone. You mean everybody should be underweight? I agree - it's been shown scientifically to be healthier. For rats. And what about gray areas. My ice hockey is an incredible aerobic activity. This is good. But it is also a lot of high speed physical contact with people armed with clubs. Not so good, and I have had numerous injuries while playing. I've been a runner for more than 23 years and I've yet to have a running-related injury that required medical care. Running is certainly safer than Ice hockey; there are some injuries that can happen in it also. Another odd thing around here is that occasionally a runner will be running in a trance state and get hit by a car when they run in front of it. I've had to stand on the brakes occasionally to avoid a runner that is somewhere past the wall. Why should society have to foot the bill when one of these idiots gets injured and can no longer support themselves. They made a presumably sober decision to do this. OK so far. note that this is a little tongue in cheek, but I do have a bit of a moral issue with this. What moral issue? Here's how it works: The moral issue is that eventually those insurance companies and the people who would control us will do just that. Eventually, people that engage in "risky activities" will find themselves uninsurable. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it carries no physical risk" Yep. A nation of "pussies" emerges. Insurance companies have developed ways to figure out the risk factors and how they affect the chances those behaviors will result in payouts. And they affix surcharges to their premiums to compensate. For example, life insurance policies usually have a "tobacco rate" and a "no tobacco rate". Homeowners' policies usually require an extra-cost rider if you have a pool. Etc. Same principle could be applied. To everything. It is like the health industry wanting to get hold of every possible test that could predict what we are likely to expire of so that they don't have to insure us for that. And that's where the right to privacy comes into play. Also freedom from discrimination - if a person't susceptibility to a certain disease is due to heredity and not their own choice, that is. Of course those who think that they don't want to insure you because of your smoking would really really like lots of other things about you. And this is a good time for them to chip away at your privacy rights. We already have this sort of thing in other areas. Consider the building industry. If you want to put up almost any structure that people will live or do business in, you have to meet the applicable building and safety codes. Otherwise you won;t be able to get the required permits, loans, or insurance. Even if you want to modify your own existing building, not following the codes can get you in big trouble, legally and financially. For example, if you do your own wiring but don't follow the code, and your house burns down because of it, your insurer can usually refuse to cover the loss. Not insuring violations makes sense to me, but I do have a problem if the human being is treated the same way. Now here's a disturbing trend to consider: One of the newest ideas in health care is the "specialty hospital". These are for-profit non-teaching medical facilities, often owned by the docs who work there, that focus on particular illnesses. Cardiology is a favorite. The trick is that they do not accept any federal or state reimbursement - private insurance only. So they don't have to follow govt."guidelines" in many areas. They don't have ERs and they don't accept "walk-ins", only referrals with good insurance. So.... I know...... VOUCHERS to the rescue!!!!! At first I didn't understand what you meant. Then it dawned on me about private-school vouchers... Natch! So what they get are the pick of the patients - those who can pay, are compliant, and who have good documentation. They don't have to cost-shift, so their prices are competitive. Guess what happens to the "regular" hospitals? Just like parochial and private vs. public schools... I wonder when we are going to get back to debtor's prisons again..... I wonder if some folks ever *really* understood Dickens' little book? People forget. Should events continue on their present path, they may be reintroduced to the concepts. - Mike KB3EIA |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: all that learned talk of economics, socio-political whatsit out... This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. |
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: all that learned talk of economics, socio-political whatsit out... This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? And now we just may be approaching motive? "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: Mike Coslo Date: 1/15/2005 9:56 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. Absolutely, Mike. I don't think I ever conciously thought of it that way, but you're quite right (about getting to know each other better) And seems to me I remember the name of the NG being something to do with "Amateur Radio". Ironic then that we don't find any record of THIS Leonard H. Anderson being a licensed Amateur. (There was another fellow who is now SK...I don't think you were here when I pointed it out and Lennie went BESERK over the idea that it MIGHT be him! Heaven forbid!) All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) The only fly Lennie ought to be concerned with is the one he keeps leaving unzipped in a public forum...There's laws against that! As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! Of course, Mike! YOU aren't Lennie! If you were, you, and ONLY you would be allowed to act as the moderator of an unmoderated newsgroup, would be allowed to discuss anything you wanted to irregardless of thread topic (without expectation of redirect to the topic) and YOU and ONLY you would be allowed to denigrate, disparge and otherwise verbally insult and abuse others regardless of how they treat you and then claim to be the "vicitm" whenit got fed back to you! Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. Ummmmm.....I think the questions ARE harder, but it's exponentially easier to pass since you DON'T have to KNOW the material! Just read through the Q&A a few times! You'll pass! (eventually!) But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. But that's exactly what we do when we publish the test questions AND answers! In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Actually it's just a hair over 4% if you include 160 meters. A grand total of 3.75Mhz of bandwidth plus the five 60 meter "channels". The six meter band alone is wider than all of our MFHF spectrum. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. If all of Lennie's other misrepresentations and deceit weren't enough, that paragraph right there would be enough to convince any other person who is even marginally well informed on Amateur Radio matters that Lennie is an idiot and antagonist of monumental proportion. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. What was the final count..?!?! 17 "responses" to various commenters, most of which were "cookie cutter insults" on the motives or character of the respondents? OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. Lennie just wishes he could remember the last time he engaged in ANY mutually gratifying sexual act. As for the "self" part, I am sure he wished he remembered WHERE the parts were to fulfill same! "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? That's a Lenniesque effort to bring us down to his level. Lennie can't bring himself to take the same tests every current new Amateur takes, so he must bring all 600K+ of us down to him! Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to the humblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) Ich bin keine Feldwebel. Ich bin ein Hauptmann. Viele Danke! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? Len obviously cares a lot. It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just isn't. I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. Perhaps that's what bothers Len so much. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. I don't know that one? Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) See below. As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Nobody else does. Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. I disagree, but see below for the discussion. But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. Yep. Particularly since hams still use Morse Code. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. All depends what results you want. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? Nobody really knows. One reason the number of Techs/TechPluses is shrinking is expirations like that. Another is upgrades. In another 5 years and 3-1/2 months, all the Tech Pluses will be gone. The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Yep. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? And now we just may be approaching motive? Yep. Notice how Len never describes in detail what he thinks the rules for the ARS should be. It's like a Zen exercise - he'll tell you what he thinks amateur radio license requirements should not be, but he won't tell you what he thinks they should be. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) Yep. And now for the Very Basic Concept: In the early days of radio, operation of any sort of radio set required considerable technical knowledge and operating skills. The level required was so high, and the equipment so fussy, that "radio operator" quickly became a speciality in itself. Professional radio operators did it for money, amateur radio operators did it for fun, but the skills and knowledge were needed to get the equipment to work at all. That's ultimately why licenses were required - to make sure those on the air had needed skills and knowledge. Even operating a receiver took a lot of skill. Over time, technological progress improved radio sets in all sorts of ways. Cost came down, reliability went up, all sorts of technical benchmarks were met and surpassed. Some improvements were aimed at making the sets perform better. Other focused on reducing the level of skill needed to operate them. Compare a BC receiver from the early 1920s with one from the late 1930s, and the differences are striking. What was once a large, expensive, complex device running on batteries and requiring careful adjustment of multiple controls just to hear a local broadcast became a small box with only two controls. Similar things happened in "two-way" radio, but over a longer time span. The goals were similar: improve the technical performance, and reduce the level of skill needed to operate them. In the latter area, the ultimate goal was to completely eliminate the need for a skilled radio operator. In order for this to happen, operations were channelized, automation was incorporated to a high degree, and modes were chosen that did not require special operator skills. A prime example of this is the land mobile radio services, using VHF/UHF FM voice. The first-generation sets were expensive and complex by the standards of the time - but almost anyone could use the sets. Push to talk, volume, squelch. Maybe a four-position channel selector. No tuning, no adjustments, clear FM audio. And no radio operator. Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. This is where amateur radio diverges sharply from other services, and becomes unique in many ways. Removing the skilled radio operator would eliminate what we're all about, which is "radio for its own sake". That's why so many hams want to keep the standards high. Because if they are lost, what's left isn't amateur radio. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? Len obviously cares a lot. It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just isn't. I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. Perhaps that's what bothers Len so much. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. I don't know that one? http://www.geocities.com/fearlessfly2003/ He was part of the Milton the Monster show. There was trend at that time, for goofy superheros. Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) See below. As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then! Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Nobody else does. Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. I disagree, but see below for the discussion. But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. Yep. Particularly since hams still use Morse Code. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. All depends what results you want. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? Nobody really knows. One reason the number of Techs/TechPluses is shrinking is expirations like that. Another is upgrades. In another 5 years and 3-1/2 months, all the Tech Pluses will be gone. Regardless of the specific reasons, they allowed their licenses to lapse. If the no-code test system were any kind of success, there would not be a falloff like that. The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Yep. So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by and large don't. Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? And now we just may be approaching motive? Yep. Notice how Len never describes in detail what he thinks the rules for the ARS should be. It's like a Zen exercise - he'll tell you what he thinks amateur radio license requirements should not be, but he won't tell you what he thinks they should be. If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS license numbers thread, where he starts out with Lenof21 Well, Herr Gruppekommandant, it's time to "show you my papers" Lenof21 and confess all - Lots of analysis fodder. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... That is one I would like to forget. "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) Yep. And now for the Very Basic Concept: In the early days of radio, operation of any sort of radio set required considerable technical knowledge and operating skills. The level required was so high, and the equipment so fussy, that "radio operator" quickly became a speciality in itself. Professional radio operators did it for money, amateur radio operators did it for fun, but the skills and knowledge were needed to get the equipment to work at all. That's ultimately why licenses were required - to make sure those on the air had needed skills and knowledge. Even operating a receiver took a lot of skill. Over time, technological progress improved radio sets in all sorts of ways. Cost came down, reliability went up, all sorts of technical benchmarks were met and surpassed. Some improvements were aimed at making the sets perform better. Other focused on reducing the level of skill needed to operate them. Compare a BC receiver from the early 1920s with one from the late 1930s, and the differences are striking. What was once a large, expensive, complex device running on batteries and requiring careful adjustment of multiple controls just to hear a local broadcast became a small box with only two controls. Similar things happened in "two-way" radio, but over a longer time span. The goals were similar: improve the technical performance, and reduce the level of skill needed to operate them. In the latter area, the ultimate goal was to completely eliminate the need for a skilled radio operator. In order for this to happen, operations were channelized, automation was incorporated to a high degree, and modes were chosen that did not require special operator skills. A prime example of this is the land mobile radio services, using VHF/UHF FM voice. The first-generation sets were expensive and complex by the standards of the time - but almost anyone could use the sets. Push to talk, volume, squelch. Maybe a four-position channel selector. No tuning, no adjustments, clear FM audio. And no radio operator. Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. This is where amateur radio diverges sharply from other services, and becomes unique in many ways. Removing the skilled radio operator would eliminate what we're all about, which is "radio for its own sake". That's why so many hams want to keep the standards high. Because if they are lost, what's left isn't amateur radio. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Y'all are? Well, heck, why not...you demand Obediance to the old standards and practices in a radio hobby...and have for years without going along with any change. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then! On the contrary...:-) If the code test were eliminated, I wouldn't bother to be here. :-) Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. Tsk. The only thing the code test requirement did was to form the ARS as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. :-) Plus a lot of puerile nyah-nyahs from those who could do morse at high rate having playground glee at talking down to those who couldn't. :-) If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS license numbers thread, where he starts out with Oh, my, aren't you the most Self-Righteous One! :-) How does the elimination of the morse code test for a U.S. amateur radio license, any class, suddenly "Destroy the ARS?" Tsk. You should be reporting me to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General for all this "destruction!" Yup, lots of Morsemen would be faced with "destruction" of the ARS AS THEY KNOW IT if the code test were eliminated. Woe! Great weeping and gnashing of gums on that. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... That is one I would like to forget. Not to worry. You simply can't remember that a PCTA extra said the same to me, years ago, and relatively recently. Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. Tsk. The "autoalarm" was already in-place on many ships prior to 1941...including the North Atlantic fabled in much earlier tales of morsemanship. How many NON-essential crewmen are there on ocean-going vessels, now or in the past four decades? Hint: Not many. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said. Putting aside your own personal hatred of a newsgroup opponent, you COULD have looked at the past history of the larger world of radio communications and - if at all possible (but unlikely in here) - dispassionately agreed with the larger world of radio. "Skilled radio operator" does NOT mean what it did in the 1920s and 1930s when morsemanship was needed. This is 80 to 70 years later, remember? Tsk. The elimination of the morse "skill" was already starting in the 1940s. Those who were self-righteous about THEIR mighty morsemanship had blinders on and couldn't see it. All those "sparks" and their mighty macho morsemanship "skills" were being displaced/downsized/nonessential on ocean-going vessels by the 1960s. [today's maritime radio services use voice by VHF of HF SSB and Data on HF...both of which require NO morsemanship whatsoever] If you wish to buy into mythos of morsemanship, fine. But, trying to convince everyone in the new millennium that this is really the 1920s and 1930s in radio sounds remarkably stupid. "Dumbed- down" to reality, in fact. Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. Posted on 16 Jan 05 |
Len Over 21 wrote: If you wish to buy into mythos of morsemanship, fine. But, trying to convince everyone in the new millennium that this is really the 1920s and 1930s in radio sounds remarkably stupid. "Dumbed- down" to reality, in fact. You keep rehashing this "1920's to 1930's" crap, Lennie, but ahve yet to provide even one iota of documentation as to anyone saying any such thing. Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. An altered state of reality is what YOU are in Lennie. Seek TRUE profesional help, not a correspondence course trained wannabe like Mrs Lennie. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Y'all are? Well, heck, why not...you demand Obediance to the old standards and practices in a radio hobby...and have for years without going along with any change. Wrong attributes, Len. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then! On the contrary...:-) If the code test were eliminated, I wouldn't bother to be here. :-) Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. Tsk. The only thing the code test requirement did was to form the ARS as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. :-) Plus a lot of puerile nyah-nyahs from those who could do morse at high rate having playground glee at talking down to those who couldn't. :-) I haven't experienced that. If they are "talking down to you, perhaps there is another reason? If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS license numbers thread, where he starts out with Oh, my, aren't you the most Self-Righteous One! :-) Deduction does not make a person self-righteous. and last time I checked, there was no law against desiring the destruction of the ARS. How does the elimination of the morse code test for a U.S. amateur radio license, any class, suddenly "Destroy the ARS?" It does not suddenly destroy the ARS. What it does is probably acquire another group of people who are similar to the people that were enticed by the no-code Technician test, who will simply drop out. One needs a good interest level to learn Morse code. These people are likely to stick with the program. So as attrition takes out the Olde Tymers, and the new group simply loses interest and goes on to video games or whatever, the ARS goes away eventually with a wimper. Will this happen? I dunno, but there is some plausibility to it. Tsk. You should be reporting me to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General for all this "destruction!" Wanna engage in civil discussion of the Morse code issue, or do you want to go off on wild tangents with statements like that? Yup, lots of Morsemen would be faced with "destruction" of the ARS AS THEY KNOW IT if the code test were eliminated. Woe! Great weeping and gnashing of gums on that. And not a problem at all for you. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... That is one I would like to forget. Not to worry. You simply can't remember that a PCTA extra said the same to me, years ago, and relatively recently. So a second incident excuses the first? Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. Tsk. The "autoalarm" was already in-place on many ships prior to 1941...including the North Atlantic fabled in much earlier tales of morsemanship. How many NON-essential crewmen are there on ocean-going vessels, now or in the past four decades? Hint: Not many. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said. Putting aside your own personal hatred of a newsgroup opponent, you COULD have looked at the past history of the larger world of radio communications and - if at all possible (but unlikely in here) - dispassionately agreed with the larger world of radio. I there are perhaps 3 people in this world that I dislike enough that a person might term it hatred. You are most definitely NOT one of them. I am ready to have civil debate. Are you? "Skilled radio operator" does NOT mean what it did in the 1920s and 1930s when morsemanship was needed. This is 80 to 70 years later, remember? Nope, I'm a new ham. I don't remember much on the subject more than 5 years ago. Tsk. The elimination of the morse "skill" was already starting in the 1940s. Those who were self-righteous about THEIR mighty morsemanship had blinders on and couldn't see it. All those "sparks" and their mighty macho morsemanship "skills" were being displaced/downsized/nonessential on ocean-going vessels by the 1960s. [today's maritime radio services use voice by VHF of HF SSB and Data on HF...both of which require NO morsemanship whatsoever] If you wish to buy into mythos of morsemanship, fine. But, trying to convince everyone in the new millennium that this is really the 1920s and 1930s in radio sounds remarkably stupid. "Dumbed- down" to reality, in fact. Same old argument. It is a valid mode, despite its age. So much of what we are using is pretty old technology. SSB is old. FM is old. Even digital modes are hardly new stuff Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. I hope to enjoy it as much as you do your interest in Ham radio. |
Kim wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? Len obviously cares a lot. It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just isn't. I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a reality check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few cases. No reality check needed, Kim. If a person is honest and straightforward, then it comes across. If a person uses various "personas" fro their posting, then that also comes across. If a person needs to disguise themselves, if they feel comfortable tossing brickbats at another, disregarding that there is a human on the other side, and that Usenet is not a sort of insulting text game that they play with their computers, then that also tells a lot about the person. It is like people claiming that alcohol causes them to do evil and antisocial things. Sorry, but they were already evil and antisocial. The alcohol simply allowed them to shift the blame. For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or inciting "a riot" so to speak! Because the person is like that. I know a lot about people that incite major antagonism in newsgroups, even if they are civil in person. I know I can get certain people going in a heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously... In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so... I don't use it to determine anothers personality, but I can determine true personality from it. YMMV. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Yep. So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by and large don't. Many coded Techs are quite active on 6m. Most no code Techs are not. In fact, most of the no code Techs I encounter are on 2m or 70cm repeaters only. Once almost never hears them on simplex frequencies. They stick to FM and aren't heard using SSB or CW on 2m or 70cm. Around here, most no code Techs are not active radio club members. Most do not partcipate in ARES groups. Most are not members of the ARRL. To sum it up, it seems that most no code Techs are about 2m FM repeater use. Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Y'all are? Well, heck, why not...you demand Obediance to the old standards and practices in a radio hobby...and have for years without going along with any change. No one here has gone along with any change in amateur radio? How did you come to be in possession of this rare informational gem? If the code test were eliminated, I wouldn't bother to be here. :-) It was reduced to 5 wpm. Your presence wasn't reduced by the same percentage. :-) :-) Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. Tsk. The only thing the code test requirement did was to form the ARS as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. :-) That seems to be a song sung by the Archaic Newsgroup Haunter. :-) Plus a lot of puerile nyah-nyahs from those who could do morse at high rate having playground glee at talking down to those who couldn't. :-) You really should see someone about that complex you have. :-) Putting aside your own personal hatred of a newsgroup opponent, you COULD have looked at the past history of the larger world of radio communications and - if at all possible (but unlikely in here) - dispassionately agreed with the larger world of radio. Personal hatred? I don't hate you, Len. In fact, I rather pity you. Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. That's incorrect. The Amateur Radio Service is what we're in. You aren't. Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: [snip] So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by and large don't. Many coded Techs are quite active on 6m. Most no code Techs are not. In fact, most of the no code Techs I encounter are on 2m or 70cm repeaters only. Once almost never hears them on simplex frequencies. They stick to FM and aren't heard using SSB or CW on 2m or 70cm. Around here, most no code Techs are not active radio club members. Most do not partcipate in ARES groups. Most are not members of the ARRL. To sum it up, it seems that most no code Techs are about 2m FM repeater use. Dave K8MN I am happy to report that at least in our club we have some very active Tech no codes participating in a wide variety of activities. Two of our club officers are no codes. One of the hams who was instrumental in getting a local antenna ordinance changed was a no code tech (unfortunately he passed away shortly thereafter). I've heard several on FM simplex and sideband. Quite a few participate in our public service events. So there are some who choose to explore other avenues of ham radio besides the repeater. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Kim wrote: I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a reality check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few cases. No reality check needed, Kim. If a person is honest and straightforward, then it comes across. If a person uses various "personas" fro their posting, then that also comes across. If a person needs to disguise themselves, if they feel comfortable tossing brickbats at another, disregarding that there is a human on the other side, and that Usenet is not a sort of insulting text game that they play with their computers, then that also tells a lot about the person. Well, your experiences have been entirely different from mine, then, Mike. Long, long before I ever discovered the "newsgroupie" thingy, my husband and I had discovered "chat" rooms. We were participants in many, many venues and, in several, were even clannish to the extent of forming parties and get-togethers wherein travel was often involved to get to the area where we were all to meet and have dinners/lunches, whatever. In nearly all cases, the people we met in person were vastly, and I do mean VASTLY, different from their personalities online. I would say that, of about or around 100 people, 2, maybe 3, (not including ourselves) were "normal." Not to insult anyone, but I would define normal as in: relative to our frame of nature, background, etc. What we considered proper and presentable was mostly different from the folks we met. In fact, it was meeting the folks that drove us from the whole "enjoyment" we THOUGHT we were having with these chat rooms...LMAO! It is like people claiming that alcohol causes them to do evil and antisocial things. Sorry, but they were already evil and antisocial. The alcohol simply allowed them to shift the blame. Oh, I wholeheartedly believe that. However, I believe that it was the nature of the "incognito" status that maybe shaded how we really thought people were. I mean, what one may find humorous in the text venue, may turn out to be outright obnoxious in person. The apparent sweetest person on the planet Earth, online, becomes in person, the most nearly evil person one's ever known. Even I, as crass as I am (and I am) have manners in public and do not take pride in embarrassing people and generally know the line. Many we met were oblivious to society boundaries and were quite embarrassing to be around. For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or inciting "a riot" so to speak! Because the person is like that. I know a lot about people that incite major antagonism in newsgroups, even if they are civil in person. MMMmmm mmmm, gotta disagree there. Why? Because, here in this newsgroup, I probably have a reputation for being pretty antagonistic. In person, I am very deliberate, cautious, calculating and very, very mindful of keeping a group of people, who may lean toward being argumentative, on the friendly and "get along with each other" end. If you knew me in person, as many do, you'd be told by others that I am one of the most cohesive building partners anyone's ever met. I am also generally in a position of listening, collaboration, and leadership--and take great pride in being very good at it. Here, to hell with all that. In fact, it has in the past been a great tension reliever. I don't generally care about anyone on this newsgroup because I've taught myself not to care about people I really don't know--and I really don't know anyone here except, maybe, Cecil...and he's a great guy from what I met of him. I know I can get certain people going in a heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously... In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so... I don't use it to determine anothers personality, but I can determine true personality from it. YMMV. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes, my mileage definitely varies. I've been way too exposed to way too many people in the past, who were internet "friends" until I met them...good Lord thank God they're many, many, many miles away. Kim W5TIT |
Kim wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a reality check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few cases. No reality check needed, Kim. If a person is honest and straightforward, then it comes across. If a person uses various "personas" fro their posting, then that also comes across. If a person needs to disguise themselves, if they feel comfortable tossing brickbats at another, disregarding that there is a human on the other side, and that Usenet is not a sort of insulting text game that they play with their computers, then that also tells a lot about the person. Well, your experiences have been entirely different from mine, then, Mike. Long, long before I ever discovered the "newsgroupie" thingy, my husband and I had discovered "chat" rooms. We were participants in many, many venues and, in several, were even clannish to the extent of forming parties and get-togethers wherein travel was often involved to get to the area where we were all to meet and have dinners/lunches, whatever. In nearly all cases, the people we met in person were vastly, and I do mean VASTLY, different from their personalities online. I would say that, of about or around 100 people, 2, maybe 3, (not including ourselves) were "normal." Not to insult anyone, but I would define normal as in: relative to our frame of nature, background, etc. What we considered proper and presentable was mostly different from the folks we met. In fact, it was meeting the folks that drove us from the whole "enjoyment" we THOUGHT we were having with these chat rooms...LMAO! Yeah that probably would be disappointing. I have very little experience in chat rooms, but it seems that many people in them are trying to impress other people in some fashion. It is like people claiming that alcohol causes them to do evil and antisocial things. Sorry, but they were already evil and antisocial. The alcohol simply allowed them to shift the blame. Oh, I wholeheartedly believe that. However, I believe that it was the nature of the "incognito" status that maybe shaded how we really thought people were. I mean, what one may find humorous in the text venue, may turn out to be outright obnoxious in person. The apparent sweetest person on the planet Earth, online, becomes in person, the most nearly evil person one's ever known. And a person with severe conflicts. Even I, as crass as I am (and I am) have manners in public and do not take pride in embarrassing people and generally know the line. Many we met were oblivious to society boundaries and were quite embarrassing to be around. For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or inciting "a riot" so to speak! Because the person is like that. I know a lot about people that incite major antagonism in newsgroups, even if they are civil in person. MMMmmm mmmm, gotta disagree there. Why? Because, here in this newsgroup, I probably have a reputation for being pretty antagonistic. In person, I am very deliberate, cautious, calculating and very, very mindful of keeping a group of people, who may lean toward being argumentative, on the friendly and "get along with each other" end. If you knew me in person, as many do, you'd be told by others that I am one of the most cohesive building partners anyone's ever met. I am also generally in a position of listening, collaboration, and leadership--and take great pride in being very good at it. And I don't doubt that a bit. I purposely don't pick up on the things that would seem obvious. We send out other and subtle clues Here, to hell with all that. In fact, it has in the past been a great tension reliever. I don't generally care about anyone on this newsgroup because I've taught myself not to care about people I really don't know--and I really don't know anyone here except, maybe, Cecil...and he's a great guy from what I met of him. So I've heard from all accounts. My limited impression of Cecil is that he is most likely very genial, has a good sense of humor, and a bit stubborn (that last was obvious! 8^) I know I can get certain people going in a heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously... In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so... I don't use it to determine anothers personality, but I can determine true personality from it. YMMV. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes, my mileage definitely varies. I've been way too exposed to way too many people in the past, who were internet "friends" until I met them...good Lord thank God they're many, many, many miles away. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com