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. 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.


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 and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of
some imagined god-inspired "service"). 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.

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. 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.

Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for
Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Removal of the morse test does
NOT "dumb anything down" but rather makes the amateur hobby
more open, 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.

"You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur
radio. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from
communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations.
"You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything
else. Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality.

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 ,
(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.