From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

wrote:
From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not
a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level
of
stability so all is well in Newington.

Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League. :-)



Sweetums you silly old thing you blew it again, you missed the real
kicker in bush-league imbroglio.

"Blew" WHAT, you silly old beeper geriatric? :-)

The gist of Hans' proposal being that
the League needs to reshuffle some of it's organization charts.

Tsk. It's a LOT MORE than that, "sweetums."

The ARRL has to have its MINDSET realigned and
recalibrated to fit this new millennium. It can't
continue on using the now-very-old standards and
practices of the 1930s in amateur radio...such as
the bias in favor of morsemanship over everything
else...such as the bias in favor of featuring the
HF bands over all other bands.

His new
program would "fix" what he perceives as some huge lack of Techs'
interest in the ARRL and draw them into the Inner Sanctum.

As of 7 May 2005, the actual license numbers from
the FCC database, as shown on www.hamdata.com, show
that 48.43% of all U.S. amateur licensees are in
the Technician class category. [wait a few days
and the percentage will get higher... :-) ] At
the present rate of growth of Technicians...and at
the present rate of attrition in all the other
classes, the MAJORITY of U.S. amateur licensees
will be Technicians in another couple of years.

Regardless of not fitting YOUR perplexed paradigm
on What Ham Radio Should Be, the unalterable fact
is that the ARRL only pays lip-service and spins
"approval" of those "lower classes" insofar as
what the League thinks Ham Radio Should Be. If
you would get away from sniping at others not
sharing your concepts of hamdom, you could note
the "survival syndrome" exhibited by the ARRL and
its BoD...they just don't like CHANGE and want to
keep things cozy and comfy as THEY like it in the
hobby.

Welp, in the
end his perception ain't reality at all even with rough passes at
rough
numbers yes?

Using survey numbers of 1996 in the year 2005 isn't
even close to your "engineering way," "sweetums."
It certainly would NOT be good business sense.
Don't forget that the League gets millions out
of their PUBLISHING and product sale/resale end
of operations. [check out their Federal income
tax statements for the real numbers]

Fact is that ~17% of the pore downtrodden Techs are League
members whilst only around 13% of the "high-ranking" Generals are
members. Now what? Hmmm?

Cut your smoke & mirrors act, "sweetums." :-)

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

Cut your smoke & mirrors act Sweetums, I did not just get off the
boat.

An aircraft carrier is NOT a "boat." :-)

Your glasses must have fallen in the water then,
since you can't understand that USING 8 1/2 year
old data to make your point (preceding) and now
saying that this data is no good...that only makes
you an intellectual hypocrite. Or a PCTA (they
are very similar in that regard).


Like I said, all is well in Newington. Hiram Percy would be delighted.


Tsk. You are still mumbling Maxims?

Maxim DIED over a half century ago, "sweetums."

ARRL membership is STILL LESS than a quarter of
all licensed U.S. amateurs. [21.1% to be more
exact]

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

snore

Poor baby...strain too much for your ancient bones?
Can't handle controversy? Think you are "better"
than the average ham hobbyist? Of course...you
are morse code tested!!! That makes you "superior!"

[superior...like the lake...all wet? :-) ]

Quit chomping them hoagies, old timer, they give
you gas and make you fall asleep in your rocker.

wrote:
From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level
of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable
level
of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Apologies for being repetitious here but sometimes that's what it takes
.. . When I asked Sumner for the by-class breakdown he wrote that the
last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up with
Sumner.

w3rv

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable

level

of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Apologies for being repetitious here but sometimes that's what it takes
. . When I asked Sumner for the by-class breakdown he wrote that the
last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up with
Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all time
peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about your
smarts in going to "the source". I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.

One of us is wrong with the numbers. Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think more
likely?


- mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:


last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up
with
Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all
time
peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about
your
smarts in going to "the source".

'Scuse me?? Where, exactly, did I brag about any of it? I simply fired
off another request for some info to a League management type and
Sumner responded as usual. Which is typical of the sorts of things he
and the rest of the folk at HQ get paid to do. I've done it any number
of times in the past and I expect I'll do it many more times in the
future. This is "bragging" on my part??


I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.

Uh-huh. As if an 11% discrepancy in some arcane data in a hobby NG
actually matters.


One of us is wrong with the numbers.

Makes no sense.

Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think
more
likely?

I don't "think about" such things Michael, I don't take offhand
potshots at whether or not a specfic dataset is right or wrong and
neither do the rest of us who are expected to responsibly process data
and crunch numbers. We chase down the data to it's source and
straighten out discrepancies by the numbers. Yeah, I know. "Not your
field". Obviously. Not my problem. His e-mail address is
.


- mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:



last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up
with Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all
time peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about

your

smarts in going to "the source".


'Scuse me?? Where, exactly, did I brag about any of it? I simply fired
off another request for some info to a League management type and
Sumner responded as usual. Which is typical of the sorts of things he
and the rest of the folk at HQ get paid to do. I've done it any number
of times in the past and I expect I'll do it many more times in the
future. This is "bragging" on my part??

You wrote:

* Nah, no applause Sweetums, it's just and old engineer's trick which
* apparently isn't used much these days. "If you don't have the info
* simply get off yer butt and ASK somebody who DOES have info."

You don't think that is sarcastic and bragging about how you were
astute enough to do a simple task that apparently is little used?


I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.


Uh-huh. As if an 11% discrepancy in some arcane data in a hobby NG
actually matters.

If you read the reports, it doesn't appear that ARRL thinks the
membership numbers are arcane.

They are *very* much concerned about the membership drop. It isn't too
hard to figure out what happens to an organization that loses 13% of its
members in 6 years (1997-2003)





One of us is wrong with the numbers.


Makes no sense.


Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think
more likely?


I don't "think about" such things Michael, I don't take offhand
potshots

What offhand potshot? Is reporting a different result a potshot?

at whether or not a specfic dataset is right or wrong and
neither do the rest of us who are expected to responsibly process data
and crunch numbers.

Do people who responsibly process data (as opposed to say me?...)
happily process data that is wrong?



We chase down the data to it's source and
straighten out discrepancies by the numbers.

Cool. I don't feel much need to chase my numbers down much further, as
the annual reports, while not unimpeachable, are an audited instrument.
Bad membership figures in an annual report would be bad indeed.



Yeah, I know. "Not your
field". Obviously.

I don't understand this at all. Are you arguing from authority?



Not my problem. His e-mail address is

No thanks.

I don't know why you're worked up about this. Show me the location of
my rudeness and "offhand potshot" behavior, and I'll be happy to
apologise here in the group.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Steve, K4YZ

From: "K4YZ" on May 11, 10:15 am

wrote [in response to W3RV]:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "embarrasment" at all...to me.
I've been a working PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics
since 1952, passed a First 'Phone test in 1956, been
co-owner of a business radio in what is now called
Private Land Mobile Radio Service, and have legally
OPERATED on many MORE parts of the EM spectrum than
is permitted to just amateur radio licensees.

However, Robeson's post is just more of the puerile
junior-high school babbling by the Avenging Angle of
Dearth, Stebie Robeson, off on another tangent
of hatred, trying to mouth-off more abuse. Tsk.
It does indicate that the mindset of some amateur
extras hasn't gone much beyond age 13 1/2.

At question is NUMBER DATA on/from ARRL and the
DATE of such numbers. Kelly contends that an
8 1/2 year period is inconsequential to the
discussion. Coslo disagrees with that. I disagree
with Kelly's contention. Robeson can only jeer and
heckle the participants in that discussion, not
being able to think while in the midst of his
unstable emotional volatility.

Kelly thinks that the ARRL is "going along
swimingly," no problems there, everything just
fine.

Not the case in reality. Brakob realizes that and
so does Coslo. Note the statements on the
www.hamdata.com webpage in regards to statistics:
TECHNICIAN class license totals have been
increasing at a rate of 26 per day! [that's about
four times faster than the combined General and
Extra class increases of 6 per day]

On the license class totals, it is interesting to
compare (via Hamdata) those of 11 May 05 versus
those of two years prior:

2005 2003
Both Tech Classes - 350,566 348,749
All four others - 373,171 378,994
Total, all classes - 723,737 727,743

Percentage of Techs - 48.44 47.92

Comparison of Growth, 2005 v. 2003

Gain or Loss, Techs - +1,817
Gain or Loss, other four - -5,823

Gain or Loss, all licensees -4,006

It should be noted that the peak of U.S. amateur
radio license numbers was on 2 Jul 03 with a total
of 737,938 then (number of club calls not known).
The Hamdata statistics are derived automatically
by downloading the publicly-available FCC database
(massive in size) and sorting for classes.

The increase in both Technician classes is not
"dramatic" but it IS an increase and has NOT
stopped as some amateur extras claimed "would
happen" after the 12-year elapse from the 1991
creation of the (no-code-test) Technician class.
At 48.44 percent of ALL current licensees, that
IS a very large percentage and is constantly
approaching a MAJORITY (it hasn't stopped
increasing in 14 years).

It should be obvious (but is not to some closed
mindsets) that the "other four" classes (Novice,
General, Advanced, Extra) have had their totals
DROP in numbers. The "other four" all require
morse code testing. The no-longer-issued-new
Novice and Advanced classes dropped by 11,649 but
the General and Extra classes gained only 5,826.
The net change in the "other four" is -5,823.
The two-year growth in both Technician classes
is NOT enough to stem the 4,006 loss in licenses
overall in two years.

The (no-code-test) Technician class licensee is
FORBIDDEN to operate below 30 MHz. A Technician
Plus licensee is permitted below 30 MHz only if
they have taken a morse code test. Old paradigms
of "the majority of hams work in the HF bands" is
rapidly approaching oblivion. The "World Above
50 MHz" may soon be the majority-use spectrum in
amateur radio. The ARRL may not be tuned in to
that band...

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on May 11, 10:15 am
wrote [in response to W3RV]:

Note the statements on the
www.hamdata.com webpage in regards to statistics:
TECHNICIAN class license totals have been
increasing at a rate of 26 per day! [that's about
four times faster than the combined General and
Extra class increases of 6 per day]

Does that 26 per day include Technician Pluses renewed as
Technicians? Does it include the Novices who pass Element 2 and get
a "Tech-with-HF"?

On the license class totals, it is interesting to
compare (via Hamdata) those of 11 May 05 versus
those of two years prior:

2005 2003
Both Tech Classes - 350,566 348,749
All four others - 373,171 378,994
Total, all classes - 723,737 727,743

Percentage of Techs - 48.44 47.92

Comparison of Growth, 2005 v. 2003

Gain or Loss, Techs - +1,817
Gain or Loss, other four - -5,823

Gain or Loss, all licensees -4,006

Very interesting!

But note that the hamdata.com numbers include licenses
that are expired but in the grace period. They also
include club and other non-operator licenses. The numbers I
post here twice a month include only current, unexpired licenses
held by individuals.

I think the totals I post are a more accurate snapshot of the
license situation than the numbers on hamdata.com, because the
inclusion of expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses skews the
totals considerably.

It should be noted that the peak of U.S. amateur
radio license numbers was on 2 Jul 03 with a total
of 737,938 then (number of club calls not known).
The Hamdata statistics are derived automatically
by downloading the publicly-available FCC database
(massive in size) and sorting for classes.

How massive?

Let's look at some other numbers:

These are the numbers of current, unexpired amateur licenses held
by individuals on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329 (7.31%)
Technician - 205,394 (30.44%)
Technician Plus - 128,860 (19.09%)
General - 112,677 (16.70%)
Advanced - 99,782 (14.79%)
Extra - 78,750 (11.67%)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 (49.53%)

Total General/Advanced/Extra - 291,209 (43.16%)

Total Novice/General/Advanced/Extra - 340,538 (50.47%)

Total all classes - 674,792

As of April 30, 2005:

Novice - 28,604 (decrease of 20,725) (4.29%)
Technician - 268,116 (increase of 62,722) (40.23%)
Technician Plus - 49,987 (decrease of 78,873) (7.50%)
General - 136,783 (increase of 24,106) (20.52%)
Advanced - 76,410 (decrease of 23,372) (11.46%)
Extra - 106,577 (increase of 27,827) (15.99%)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,103 (decrease of 16,151) (47.73%)

Total General/Advanced/Extra - 319,770 (increase of 28,651) (47.98%)

Total Novice/General/Advanced/Extra - 348,374 (increase of 7,836)
(52.27%)

Total all classes - 666,477 (decrease of 8,315)

The increase in both Technician classes is not
"dramatic" but it IS an increase and has NOT
stopped as some amateur extras claimed "would
happen" after the 12-year elapse from the 1991
creation of the (no-code-test) Technician class.

Who claimed that would happen? I sure didn't.

At 48.44 percent of ALL current licensees, that
IS a very large percentage and is constantly
approaching a MAJORITY (it hasn't stopped
increasing in 14 years).

Not really.

The number of current Tech/Tech Plus licenses held by
individuals is now over 16,000 *less* than it was just
5 years ago. It is trending *away* from a majority - if you look
at the number of current, unexpired licenses.

The percentage of US hams with a current, unexpired Tech or Tech Plus
license has dropped by 1.8% in the past 5 years. The percentage of US
hams with a current, unexpired General, Advanced or Extra license has
grown by 4.82% in the same time period.

Of course some of that growth is Novices and Tech Pluses upgrading
to General or Extra. And some of it is new hams who don't let the
current license requirements stop them.

It should be obvious (but is not to some closed
mindsets) that the "other four" classes (Novice,
General, Advanced, Extra) have had their totals
DROP in numbers.

Yet in the 5 years since restructuring, the opposite is true - the
number of Techs/Tech Pluses has dropped and the number of the "other
four" has increased.

The "other four" all require
morse code testing.

So does a Tech Plus, but you count them as Techs. You also count
licenses that are expired but in the grace period as if they were
current licenses.

The no-longer-issued-new
Novice and Advanced classes dropped by 11,649 but
the General and Extra classes gained only 5,826.
The net change in the "other four" is -5,823.
The two-year growth in both Technician classes
is NOT enough to stem the 4,006 loss in licenses
overall in two years.

And the significance of this is?

The (no-code-test) Technician class licensee is
FORBIDDEN to operate below 30 MHz.

Only if they have not passed Element 1.

A Technician
Plus licensee is permitted below 30 MHz only if
they have taken a morse code test.

Of course Technician
Pluses who renew as Technicians keep their HF privileges, and
Technicians who pass Element 1 get them, even though their
licenses don't change class.

So an unknown number of "Technicians" can legally operate on some HF
amateur bands. Also, any amateur with a Technician Plus or Novice
license, current, grace period, or expired, can get a General or Extra
without any further code testing.

What's your point in all this, Len? You give a lot of numbers but never
seem to say why they matter.

And why does all this concern you so much? You're not a radio
amateur, and it appears that you'll never become one either -
your "out of the box" claim of almost 5-1/2 years ago notwithstanding.

From: on Thurs,May 12 2005 3:26 pm

wrote:


But note that the hamdata.com numbers include licenses
that are expired but in the grace period. They also
include club and other non-operator licenses. The numbers I
post here twice a month include only current, unexpired licenses
held by individuals.

So sayeth the Keeper of the Amateur Census. :-)

I think the totals I post are a more accurate snapshot of the
license situation than the numbers on hamdata.com, because the
inclusion of expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses skews the
totals considerably.

I don't think so. Many others don't think so.

Now PROVE you are the ONLY ACCURATE voice of
what goes on in this "amateur community."

The FCC doesn't appear to think as you do, Jimmie.
If a licensee is in their grace period and then
renews their license before that period is up,
it just resets the FCC data. The licensed amateur
still retains his/her license after renewal.

It should be noted that the peak of U.S. amateur
radio license numbers was on 2 Jul 03 with a total
of 737,938 then (number of club calls not known).
The Hamdata statistics are derived automatically
by downloading the publicly-available FCC database
(massive in size) and sorting for classes.

How massive?

You have to ask?!? :-) MANY megabytes, Jimmie.
The information is THERE, publicly accessible.
As Kellie exhorts, "get off your duff and go find
it!" :-)

Hint: The actual numbers change on database size.



Who claimed that would happen? I sure didn't.

Tsk, tsk. My posting was NOT directed to you. :-)

You are NOT on trial. Tell your legal counsel to
quit billing you for legal representation. This
is NOT a court. :-)



Of course Technician
Pluses who renew as Technicians keep their HF privileges, and
Technicians who pass Element 1 get them, even though their
licenses don't change class.

So an unknown number of "Technicians" can legally operate on some HF
amateur bands. Also, any amateur with a Technician Plus or Novice
license, current, grace period, or expired, can get a General or Extra
without any further code testing.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie Noserve is still trying to foist
off his OWN concept of "the real amateur community"
where the Technician classes are "not real hams"
(REAL hams work DX on HF with CW?).

Jimmie boy, give us your EXACT numbers on those Tech
class licensees who ONLY "work" above 30 MHz. Then
PROVE that they all hunger for or desire to "work CW"
on the HF bands...as all "real hams" should. :-)

What's your point in all this, Len? You give a lot of numbers but
never
seem to say why they matter.

"Sweetums," I don't INTERPRET raw data. I just quote
it from the public database downloaded by one website
from the FCC.

I HAVE said "why it matters." You don't want to listen.
You don't want to believe anything contrary to your
immaculate concept of "real ham radio."

Why does that bother you so much, Jimmie? Do you suspect
I gored your sacred cow or something? Has your "honor"
been sullied? Are you "appealing a court ruling" in
here? Must be. You take things SO seriously!

And why does all this concern you so much?

I dunno, Jimmie, YOU are going to TELL me WHY "I am so
concerned" because you KNOW everything. :-)

Maybe I might want to get a ham license someday? Or
maybe I just like to get to the TRUTH of matters
without all the smoke and mirrors of some fanatics
who take their HOBBY as a Life Calling?

You're not a radio
amateur, and it appears that you'll never become one either -

Tsk, tsk. Jimmie boy, YOU don't CONTROL anything or
anybody.

I'm a PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics. Have been for
53 years. I'm a HOBBYIST in radio-electronics too,
have been for about 57 years.

[ sunnuvagun! ]

your "out of the box" claim of almost 5-1/2 years ago notwithstanding.

Poor baby. Poor Brother Jimmie, monk at the Church of
Saint Hiram, having doubts about his LIFE CALLING in
the AMATEUR ORDER. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

A HOBBY is NOT a Life Calling, Jimmie. It doesn't
require LIFELONG DEVOTION and Absolute Adherence to
the VOWS taken when one entered the Order.

I never made a SACRED VOW in HERE on anything,
"Sweetums." You are trying to MANUFACTURE that
condition. Nice misdirection on what HAD been a
discussion of public database numbers versus Bro.
Jimmie's concept of U.S. ham radio (as seen from
the insides of his mind's monastery).

I've taken ONE VOW absolute. In my marriage
ceremony. I wear only ONE ring, a wedding ring.
I've taken ANOTHER VOW absolute...that of defending
the U.S. Constitution when I was inducted into the
U.S. Army. I still hold to BOTH those vows.
NO problem to me. Those are absolute.

You apparently think some newsgroup content is
EQUIVALENT to such an absolute VOW to be held
forever. If so, you are as nuts as your buddy
and amateur extra role-model for all hams, Stebie
the Avenging Angle of Dearth.

Go step out of your monastery, Bro. Jimmie.

Peace be unto you.