| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
January 4th 05, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Lenof21 wrote:
In article , (Jeffrey Herman) writes: Len Over 21 wrote: But, in 2004, U.S. radio amateurs MUST still pass a morse test to "qualify" for operating an amateur radio transmitter on HF. No other radio service (other than certain Maritime radio services) require morsemanship testing. Since you opened the door, let's do some further comparisons of the ARS to other services: * We purposely operate using as little power as possible (QRP), they don't Heh heh heh. Crock of something. All one has to do is listen to the HF bands during contests and observe the S-Meter readings. Please, Lennie..tell us all about your SWLing activites on ANY band. Got bored listening to LAX ATIS or AWOS...??? Tsk. The military has built-in "QRP" (equivalent) controls to HF through UHF transceivers and has done so since at least 1989. Not all of them, Lennie. * We have antenna measuring contests with home-built antennas, they don't Most other radio services use already-measured antennas with professional installations plus more measurements after installations. No "contests" needed. "Other radio services" are not interested in improving antenna efficiency. Indeed, many antenna systems are installed with the intent to attenuate radiation in certain patterns! * We conduct emergency comms when other services are down, they're down Another crock. Tsk. You should see some of the urban emergency services' communications facilities, their training plans, listen to their on-air exercises and drills. And Leonard H. Anderson once again makes a really assinine comment in the face of contemporary, independently reported fact to the contrary. Better yet, live through a real, live emergency and see how the entire network can operate with "work-arounds." Case in point: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles where all the public safety and utility companies' were "netted" together to keep things going. The only thing "down" was buildings, poles, etc., but the emergency power was there and working...even though the primary AC power to 10 million was cut off for hours. Here we have Lennie once again retelling his tale of single-handed stay-at-home heroism of an event that happend over a decade ago. Of course it's the ONLY example he has to use. And the really ironic part is that Lennie's the one who's always lambasitng us (Amateurs) for "living in the past", etc. At least it's a bit more "modern" than his tales of Korean War era heroism in a rear area Army radio relay station is the mid fifties. * We don't have to operate on pre-assigned frequencies, they do Tsk. Ham repeaters "operate on pre-assigned frequencies." They are not "assigned", Lennie. Radio amateurs are obliged BY LAW to stay WITHIN their allocated bands. See Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Uh huh. Bands YOU are not authorized to use, I might add! * We have on-the-air contests (lots of them), they can't "They can't?!?" Why should "they?" Broadcasters have "sweeps" periods...which have more at stake than winning fancy certificates. * We can vary our power from 0 to 2KW, they can't Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya. Almost close to a funny, Lennie! [Yes, I've heard that "CW gets through when nothing else will" but ham transmitters need SOME kind of electric power...] * We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."] Post cards from the edge? :-) I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro." * We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency. Uhhhhhh....None of us "own" a frequency. Not even GROL licensed ex-technicians with no station license. International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft to change any communications frequency they need over the entire civil aviation band. Those ARE assigned frequencies. And they may NOT change to ANY frequency over the ENTIRE civil aviation band, Lennie. Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland waterways. [just a few examples] Again...Discreet, assigned frequencies by international convention. * We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests." * We can build our own equipment, they can't Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio electronics in broadcasting sometime. Sorry...broadcast facilities MUST use FCC type accepted gear, Lennie. A REAL "radio professional" would know that. The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other (non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made than to homebrew. "Cheaper" than the FCC fine which would accompany the use of non-type accepted equipment. * We operate for the fun of it, they don't First thing you've written that is close to the truth... * We have radio club meetings, they don't WRONG. The very first radio club is the Radio Club of America, incorporated 1909 (five years before the ARRL and before every other local/national radio club here). RCA is still alive and meeting but they've gone away from amateurism. They have a website with lots of informative, historical data there. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....1909...Pre-dates the ARRL by 6 years...How does this fit in to your rants about US relying on ARRL, Lennie...??? * We can ragchew for hours, they can't You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you? Participants on "talk radio" do it via telephone, not two way radio. Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a form of "ragchewing," including the military. * We can operate at will, they can't As long as you don't operate ON Will, it's okay...unless you are an MD. You can operate WITH a Will if you are an attorney. :-) It's amazing what you will append with a smiley, Lennie. You're really impressed with yourself, aren't you...??? * We go on DXpeditions, they don't Cook and Magellan had amateur radio licenses? Columbus? Vasco de Gama? Hams "discover" the undiscovered country? I don't think so. Sure they have. And before Leonard H. Anderson was old enough to stick his banana-peeler into his diaper and wonder why the pudding tasted so bad. * We're licensed, you're not WRONG! I have several licenses. I just don't have an amateur radio license. That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie. I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to bill you for services. If it's over $1.25, you're ripping folks off. No 73 for you, Jeff KH6O Tsk. No "best regards?" Not even an "88?" :-) Lecture on those numbers, sweetums. Close your classroom door on the way out. Bye.... Be still my heart..could Lennie TRULY be leaving...??? Naaaaaah....No one is THAT lucky! Steve, K4YZ |
|
#2
January 4th 05, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya. Almost close to a funny, Lennie! Wonder if "Echolink" would qualify, but the ham using the computer tied to the internet isn't using the RF spectrum in the usual sense. But that would be 0 KW.... Unless he links to a repeater in some city on teh other side of the world. * We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."] Post cards from the edge? :-) I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro." Some CB or freebanders do exchange cards, though I don't know if they use callbooks or what to get each other's addresses. And not be found by the Funny Cookie Corporation. * We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency. International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft to change any communications frequency they need over the entire civil aviation band. Those ARE assigned frequencies. And they may NOT change to ANY frequency over the ENTIRE civil aviation band, Lennie. Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland waterways. [just a few examples] Again...Discreet, assigned frequencies by international convention. Even CB sets come with 40 different frequencies the users can select at will. Not VFO though. * We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests." SOme CB clubs have flea markets that look a lot like hamfests. * We can build our own equipment, they can't Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio electronics in broadcasting sometime. That's not the transmitter. The transmitter and antenna is the only part the FCC cares about, from a technical viewpoint. There's a bunch of other rules about nontechnical aspects, but nothing that much cares about studio equipment. Sorry...broadcast facilities MUST use FCC type accepted gear, Lennie. A REAL "radio professional" would know that. The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other (non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made than to homebrew. "Cheaper" than the FCC fine which would accompany the use of non-type accepted equipment. Other services are not likely to build radios when they can buy what they need from off the shelf approved equipment. For a lot less money. For them a radio is a box that does something useful to get something they want done. * We operate for the fun of it, they don't Kids on CB seem to have fun fooling around. Not that that is a feature of that service.... First thing you've written that is close to the truth... * We can ragchew for hours, they can't You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you? Participants on "talk radio" do it via telephone, not two way radio. Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a form of "ragchewing," including the military. I doubt that a police dept would want their cops ragchewing over their radios.... * We're licensed, you're not WRONG! I have several licenses. I just don't have an amateur radio license. That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie. Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough to get it without much study, Len. I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to bill you for services. If it's over $1.25, you're ripping folks off. I think the DMV revoked his poetic license. :-) |
|
#3
January 18th 05, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t, robert casey
writes: That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie. Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough to get it without much study, Len. Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-) I can't see such a personal identification as applying to my advocacy to remove the morse code test from any test. The subject of morse code testing should stand by itself, without all the hoopla over test-passing. The reality of the radio world is that morse code mode is either dead or dying or was never born in every other radio service but amateur radio hobby activity. Even then, morse code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio amateurs. The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the morse code test is specious. It serves no real purpose to anyone desiring an amateur radio license...other than to act as an "initiation rite" that is kept only because so many others in the past were required to take that test. The federal government is NOT obliged to maintain fraternal order initiation rites. That is something for membership groups, not something for anything codified into law as regulations. The argument maintenance of the long-timers boils down to (via brainwashing by even longer-timers) them having to take the morse test, therefore all others have to take it also. That would be valid only if the ARS were an Amateur Radiotelegraphy Service. It is not. The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing qualification of amateur radio license applicants. It remains (apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL (not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations...because they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse test, therefore all others have to). Some morse code devotees consider the test necessary to "preserve and protect" manual telegraphy skills. The FCC is not chartered as either a historic preservation agency nor as an academic one. Its lawful activity is simply to regulate ALL U.S. civil radio. Unless there has been some covert activity to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, all U.S. citizens have the right to "petition their government with their grievances." In smaller words that means they can comment to any agency of the government about any laws or regulations made by that government. "Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT required. Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any who so comment are "wishing to get a license." I do not so "wish." That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so. The elimination of the morse code test is simply long overdue and should be done for the benefit of ALL citizens, not some aging fraternity boys wanting to keep an initiation rite forced upon others for no reason but their own personal desires. Those individuals are NOT a regulatory agency at all despite their implications. The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few who cannot justify their side of the discussion. You would do better to copy the methods of others and attempt defamation of the person of those wishing to eliminate the code test. That IS the way of those PCTA extras found in here. Posted on 17 Jan 05 |
|
#4
January 18th 05, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article t, robert casey writes: That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie. Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough to get it without much study, Len. Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-) That depends upon when you post. I can't see such a personal identification as applying to my advocacy to remove the morse code test from any test. The subject of morse code testing should stand by itself, without all the hoopla over test-passing. That's odd. The subject of testing should stand without hoopla over passing the test? Very, very odd. The reality of the radio world is that morse code mode is either dead or dying or was never born in every other radio service but amateur radio hobby activity. The reality is that amateur radio is the very activity in which the morse code test remains. Morse code use is very much alive in amateur radio. Even then, morse code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio amateurs. Many thousands use morse code daily within amateur radio. The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the morse code test is specious. The reasons for attempting to remove morse testing are specious. It serves no real purpose to anyone desiring an amateur radio license...other than to act as an "initiation rite" that is kept only because so many others in the past were required to take that test. That claim is specious. The federal government is NOT obliged to maintain fraternal order initiation rites. That is something for membership groups, not something for anything codified into law as regulations. That claim is specious. The argument maintenance of the long-timers boils down to (via brainwashing by even longer-timers) them having to take the morse test, therefore all others have to take it also. That would be valid only if the ARS were an Amateur Radiotelegraphy Service. It is not. Your statment is specious. The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing qualification of amateur radio license applicants. It remains (apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL (not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations...because they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse test, therefore all others have to). What a specious statement! Some morse code devotees consider the test necessary to "preserve and protect" manual telegraphy skills. The FCC is not chartered as either a historic preservation agency nor as an academic one. Its lawful activity is simply to regulate ALL U.S. civil radio. Another specious statement. Unless there has been some covert activity to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, all U.S. citizens have the right to "petition their government with their grievances." In smaller words that means they can comment to any agency of the government about any laws or regulations made by that government. "Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT required. You continue to make specious claims. You've petitioned your government by using terms like: "Judging from the suppressed outrage of long-tenured amateurs on the so-called free upgrade, one is tempted to add 'where they belong!' but that is unkind and shouldn't be said. Nonetheless, it is quite evident that class distinction is alive and firmly entrenched in United States Amateur Radio." and "That satisfies the hide-bound long-tenured's need to keep Technicians in the no-code-test ghetto." Your government is free to take no action on your statements. No one here is required to give credence to your statements or even to read your statments. No one is obligated to refrain from making light of your claims, from ridiculing your claims or from taking heated issue with your claims. Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any who so comment are "wishing to get a license." I do not so "wish." I don't mind at all that you've commented to the FCC. I don't have to accept your crap here though. I'm free to reject your ideas. I do. I'm free to reject your manner. I do. As to whether you desire an amateur radio license, such as an "Extra right out of the box", that depends upon which phase of the moon or which year we're in. You've said you do. You've said you don't. It doesn't matter. You've commented to your government. Now provide us a document which guarantees your right to have us to sit idly by while you expound here. That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so. Requirement? No. Motivation? You have not been motivated despite your claimed, decades-long interest in amateur radio. The elimination of the morse code test is simply long overdue and should be done for the benefit of ALL citizens, not some aging fraternity boys wanting to keep an initiation rite forced upon others for no reason but their own personal desires. Those individuals are NOT a regulatory agency at all despite their implications. Sorry. Specious. The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few who cannot justify their side of the discussion. Can we discuss your lack of accomplishments in amateur radio? In the use of Morse code? Shall we discuss your use of terms like "Der Kommandant" or "feldwebel"? Do you use those terms to justify your side of the "discussion"? You would do better to copy the methods of others and attempt defamation of the person of those wishing to eliminate the code test. That IS the way of those PCTA extras found in here. But not the way of those using the "Der Kommandant", "feldwebel", "Avenging Angle", "puts on his habit from time to time and tries to strike knuckles with her ruler", "Church of St. Hiram" terms? Should those ways be copied? You're a riot, Len. Dave K8MN |
|
#5
January 18th 05, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough to get it without much study, Len. Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-) The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing qualification of amateur radio license applicants. It remains (apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL (not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations...because they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse test, therefore all others have to). Morse was a treaty requirement. Which has gone away. It's just that the FCC hasn't gotten around to changing the rules on it yet. They're more concerned about wardrobe malfunctions and whatnot..... |
|
#6
January 19th 05, 06:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t, robert casey
writes: Morse was a treaty requirement. Which has gone away. It's just that the FCC hasn't gotten around to changing the rules on it yet. They're more concerned about wardrobe malfunctions and whatnot..... "Wardrobe malfunctions?" You mean like the "socks" that the Coslonaut was wanting to talk about? Oh, my. Strange, but there's no mention of "socks" on the FCC pages. Posted on 18 Jan 05 |
|
#7
January 19th 05, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
