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 -