|
John Smith wrote: K4YZ: No. We are Americans first, fathers, good members of communities, etc... about a hundred really important things--before we need ever list the fact we are a ham... I don't need "ham worship" and the guys who are drifting around after it make me puke... that is just how it is with me... I hang my master and Phd on the wall because those really did take hard work and are truly a demonstration of proving myself a scholar... my ham license hangs at the station because it is required by law!!! I will give you a thousand reasons I am a worthwhile human being before I ever get to the fact I am a viet vet and ham... those two things I did for my own reasons... not really to serve any one else more than to serve myself... Even at 52 I come from an age when men were really men--it meant something then to be a man, to protect the innocent, the weak, the women, the children, American pie... Today, I watch bellyachers lobby for more difficult barriers to be placed in front of some--hell, I fought to make America the land of milk and honey--and it is far different today than I would have it... I can do one thing, and that is to "hand down" and pull up the ones who will, all too soon, take my place--stand my responsibilities and hold the reins... One thing I wish to avoid until the day I die is becoming a bitter old man decrying what a waste the youth are in this world--how deserving I am--and how deserving all others--if you have not understood from my words up to and at this point let me spell it out for you--SUCH "MEN" make me sick and afraid it has all been for naught! Warmest regards, John Well said, John. Steve is glory seeker, plain and simple. If it doesn't come with a uniform, a badge, or a rank... |
John Smith wrote: My real name and call are held to protect the innocent (or guilty as you prefer.) I have had my station inspected a couple of times, and passed with flying colors I might add, since my fellow amateurs frowned on me chatting with truckers and general "undesirable types" on the Chicken Band... I am very familiar with hams finding out your call and attempting to use the FCC as their private police... SOME are full of dirty tricks... Warmest regards, John Careful, John. K4YZ is "dialing...." Hi, hi! |
The freebanders I know and communicate with simply freeband to escape
the code, most are young college kids who start experimenting with wireless lans/wans, start building equip and then just keep branching out from there--most are more knowledgeable than hams--especially in the GHz range... they look at the code requirement and say, "why...", then go back to their local nets of 24 Ghz... Warmest regards, John wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: In other words the League has ducked out of the code test war this time and put in the hands of the FCC. They realize a no-win situation when they see it. Also, the ARRL BoD has a wide range of opinions on the issue, so they came up with a compromise and went on to other issues. On one hand they really didn't have any choice, enough was enough. On another hand that's the way things work in democracies. 'zactly, there's other issues to deal with. Frankly, I'm simply amazed that FCC didn't just dump Element 1 two years ago when the treaty changed at WRC 2003. All they needed was a one-paragraph Memorandum Report and Order saying that they'd dealt with the issue back in 2000, and pending further changes, everybody who passes any of the written tests for a US ham license gets code test credit too. Or some such verbiage, just like they did when they waived the code sending test. My guess is that the FCC didn't move on the code test when the ITU dropped the requirement because they had a major restructuring in mind back then and decided to bundle any changes in the code test into the overall restructuring package per the Incentive Licensing restructuring. Maybe, but I doubt it. They did a big restructuring in the 1998-2000 time frame. Only became effective April 2000. I don't think they really want a big shakeup of the rules every couple of years. Which is typical regulatory "behavior". Yes, for some agencies. So you may be right. Or they had already decided to retain the code test into the future. With 98% of the world's population still subject to code tests and given the small number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in stone 4-5 years ago. Doubtful. The verbiage of the R&O for 98-143 pushed aside every reason for code tests except one: the treaty. IIRC the phrase said there was "no regulatory purpose" to code testing except compliance with the treaty. Which would lead any logical person to think that if the treaty requirement went away, there'd be no regulatory reason left, and the FCC would dump Element 1. But that was 5+ years ago.... Conversly though the waivers problem is still out there . . . Not really. Recall that the only reason we got waivers back in 1990 was that Papa Bush wanted to do the King of Jordan a favor. White House tells FCC to fix the problem so the nervous guy can chat with The Suffixless One on 20 ssb. FCC invents medical waivers, cites treaty for 5 wpm, King and Papa Bush are happy, end of story. But now the king is long gone. And there aren't any hams who are heads of state that are asking Shrub for a favor. Despite what the article sez, waivers weren't any work for the FCC. The VEs handled the whole deal. Applicant gets a doctor letter, VEs decide if it's genuine (basically that the signature came from a real doctor) and do the paperwork. FCC's only headache about waivers, IMHO, was the complaints from some hams. FCC fixed their wagon - no more waivers. But FCC didn't do that, even after getting a pile of proposals to do so. In a month or so it will be two years and there isn't even an NPRM out yet. If they go the entire NPRM cycle, it could be a year or more before the rules change - *if* they change. The NPRM is obviously enroute whether it shows up later this year or sometime next year doesn't matter much and I expect it to be a real gooder. Maybe. Obviously no hurry, either. I should revive The Pool. If past history is any indication, it'll be 2007 before we see new rules actually go into effect. Gonna be some nuclear explosions in this NG when it finally does get published. Heh. Maybe. All depends what's in it. Suppose - just suppose - FCC focused entirely on the license classes, subbands and writtens, and left 5 wpm for HF access, same as now. Imagine the reaction... Tune down the low ends of the HF bands, in the evenings when most of the younger folks aren't tied up with work, school, kids, etc. There's a lot more going on than the voice modes on the high ends. Even in the phone bands the U.S. geezer nets are usually well up the bands to accomodate the Generals, there's very little of that sort of operating in the Extra/Advanced segments. That's a fact. Now if you're in the mood for wild speculation, here's some theories to toss around: "It'll Turn Into CB/Freeband!" One of FCC's longterm headaches is outlaw operation - folks who don't care what the rules are, they just fire up and get on the air regardless. Some are on the cb channels, many have freebanded their way all over upper HF. Started about 40 years ago when 27 MHz cb got out of hand in the mid-1960s, really took off in the Smokey-avoiding '70s, and has been in the background ever since. Sometimes not so much in the background, either. Enforcement is a real pain for FCC because they have to establish all sorts of info besides some DF readings. And when they do nail somebody, the defense is often simply "I didn't know, I won't do it again". With licensed violators it's a different game because they ID, you know a lot about them from various databases, and they've already agreed in writing to let FCC in for inspection purposes. So maybe FCC thinks that by reducing license requirements they can get some of those freeband/cb folks licensed. "The Revolution That Wasn't" Over the years the claim has been made again and again that "technically knowledgeable" folks were being kept out of ham radio, or kept off HF, by the license requirements. And how if those requirements changed, we'd have a techno-revolution on the ham bands. A related claim is that we'll get lots more hams if a license is easier to get. 20+ years ago, such claims might have made some sense, because nobody knew better. But the lowering of test requirements hasn't brought a brave new techno-world, nor a lot of new folks. Remember the guy who used to preach here about "no setasides for legacy modes" and "electronic paintball wars"? He'd tell us of the "elitism" of 1x2 and 2x1 vanity calls, and how "better modes and modulations" were the future. Comes the restructure, and he goes from Tech Plus to Extra. Gets a 2x1 call, sets up a station (no homebrew, though) and proceeds to chase DX on HF SSB. 70+ countries last I knew, prolly got DXCC in the log by now. FCC may be tired of all those claims by now, having seen none of them pan out. "BPL and RFI" Perhaps FCC sees us hams as a pain the neck. We don't generate revenue, we complain about RFI and line noise and such, and our signals get into all sorts of things through no fault of ours. Put a highpass filter in every TV set? Shielding that would cost a few pennies per unit? Sheesh. And when a new technology comes along just in time to distract us (as if broadband access will make the economy boom), who raises hue and cry and won't shut up? Hams and their national organization. So maybe FCC doesn't want lots of new hams on HF. Just that many more complainers! "What's The Big Deal?" The code test today is but a shadow of what it used to be. Time was, the only way to pass was to put down a solid minute of correct legible copy. No going back and fixing up afterward. No CSCEs, no second tries the same day, etc. All gone and not coming back. The VEs are allowed a wide latitude in accomodations. Farnsworth spacing is standard - because it's usually easier. But if somebody wants "regular" 5 wpm, they can get it from most VEs. High tone or low? Speaker, 'phones or flashing light? Pen, pencil, typewriter? Just ask. Maybe you'll have to bring some hardware but most VEs I've met will meet you more than half way. It's even possible to substitute a sending test for the receiving test. Yet with all this, there are complaints that it's "too hard". (See the "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper about grown people with tears in their eyes 'cause they failed). FCC may look at all this and just draw the line. Note how, in the 2000 restructuring, they outlawed multiple-choice code tests.... --- Nobody really knows but a few folks in FCC, and they ain't saying. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: [snip] . . . . My guess is that the FCC didn't move on the code test when the ITU dropped the requirement because they had a major restructuring in mind back then and decided to bundle any changes in the code test into the overall restructuring package per the Incentive Licensing restructuring. Which is typical regulatory "behavior". Or they had already decided to retain the code test into the future. With 98% of the world's population still subject to code tests and given the small number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in stone 4-5 years ago. Conversly though the waivers problem is still out there . . . No the waivers problem is over as waivers are no longer allowed since the only code test is 5wpm. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: [snip] FCC may look at all this and just draw the line. Note how, in the 2000 restructuring, they outlawed multiple-choice code tests.... Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that Part 97 does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee Flint" wrote Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that Part 97 does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered. I think you're correct Dee. The FCC rules are silent on the form of actual examination: §97.503 Element standards. (a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK. Element 1: 5 words per minute. Interestingly, the NCVEC has chosen to ignore the "ability to send correctly by hand" clause of the rules. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Come sit by the fire and warm your bones. Let's enjoy a warm bracing drink and a few tales. "The wind was picking up, clouds were rolling in, my hands were numb, nose was running, I had to pee, and I was thinking of heading for the dock when..." |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: John, you forgot one: 9) Leonard is always wrong :-) Try to be specific and accurate: Leonard H. Anderson is usually wrong. :-) Dave K8MN To be specific and accurate: David Heil works out of band Frenchmen on 6 meters. :-) |
John Smith wrote:
K4YZ: I hang my master and Phd As if. on the wall because those really did take hard work and are truly a demonstration of proving myself a scholar... my ham license hangs at the station because it is required by law!!! Bwaaaahaha! ROTFLMAO! . . there is NO requirement for displaying any ham license anywhere. What a flaming no-clue magnitude one bull**** artist. Add this tome to your library "scholar". http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml |
K=D8HB wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that P= art 97 does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered. I think you're correct Dee. The FCC rules are silent on the form of actu= al examination: =A797.503 Element standards. (a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examine= e has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear tex= ts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using= all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, = slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK. Element 1: 5 words per minute. Interestingly, the NCVEC has chosen to ignore the "ability to send correc= tly by hand" clause of the rules. Back before VE days the FCC examiners often skipped past the sending test too. It's been a long time and the details are fuzzy in my mind at this late point but when I went for my Extra the examiner called off the receiving test about a minute and a half into it and ignored the sending test. Maybe that was when I went for my General . . ? One or the other. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Come sit by the fire and warm your bones. Let's enjoy a warm bracing drin= k and a few tales. "The wind was picking up, clouds were rolling in, my hands wer= e numb, nose was running, I had to pee, and I was thinking of heading for the dock when..." .. . Mom hollered out the window "Don't you even THINK about peeing on that bush and get back in here!" w3rv |
.... well, when one old guy turned me in here, because he thought I was
using 10 meter equip to chat on 11 meters at illegal power levels (because I had told him off--refused to join his "club" and he had gotten his buddies to complain with him)... the FCC rep who came to inspect my station (the rep called first to see if I would be around--I thought that nice of him) asked me for a copy of my license and told me I should have it displayed... perhaps he was lying? And, of course, I will go by "your rules." John wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: K4YZ: I hang my master and Phd As if. on the wall because those really did take hard work and are truly a demonstration of proving myself a scholar... my ham license hangs at the station because it is required by law!!! Bwaaaahaha! ROTFLMAO! . . there is NO requirement for displaying any ham license anywhere. What a flaming no-clue magnitude one bull**** artist. Add this tome to your library "scholar". http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml |
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: .. . . . number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in stone 4-5 years ago. Conversly though the waivers problem is still out there . . . No the waivers problem is over as waivers are no longer allowed since the only code test is 5wpm. Ooops. . I've obviously gotten out of touch with this one and it looks like I need to get back in touch. My recollection is that when the FCC didn't competely eliminate code tests for the disabled they claimed they couldn't do that because the treaty demanded a code test disabilities or not. Now that the treaty makes code tests optional the FCC can't use that "excuse" any longer so it seems to me that we're back to the possibility of somebody looking for a medical waiver vs. any code test at all . . ?? . . ? w3rv |
John Smith wrote: ... well, when one old guy turned me in here, because he thought I was using 10 meter equip to chat on 11 meters at illegal power levels (because I had told him off--refused to join his "club" and he had gotten his buddies to complain with him)... the FCC rep who came to inspect my station (the rep called first to see if I would be around--I thought that nice of him) asked me for a copy of my license and told me I should have it displayed... perhaps he was lying? And, of course, I will go by "your rules." You're the whackiest pup who has shown up around here for YEARS! I don't make any "rules", the FCC makes the rules. It's called "Part 97" for ham radio. .. . never mind, you're beyond hopeless . . . John w3rv |
That is a real trait of the group on the bands isn't it--personal
attacks, planting doubt, suspicion, rumor, innuendo... And then, I suppose you expect those watching such a performance to "respect" you--you are probably quite angry when they don't--what is next, threats? John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... well, when one old guy turned me in here, because he thought I was using 10 meter equip to chat on 11 meters at illegal power levels (because I had told him off--refused to join his "club" and he had gotten his buddies to complain with him)... the FCC rep who came to inspect my station (the rep called first to see if I would be around--I thought that nice of him) asked me for a copy of my license and told me I should have it displayed... perhaps he was lying? And, of course, I will go by "your rules." You're the whackiest pup who has shown up around here for YEARS! I don't make any "rules", the FCC makes the rules. It's called "Part 97" for ham radio. . . never mind, you're beyond hopeless . . . John w3rv |
From: "bb" on Thurs 9 Jun 2005 15:26
K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: You just dismissed the fact that Haynie is seeing a real problem here, he is beginning to tell hams to stop acting like such immature jerks and get with the program-- Has he been reading old copies of Wayne Green's editorials in "73 Magazine?" I think Jim Haynie has been peeking into THIS newsgroup of late. He was in here once a few years ago. We corresponded briefly via private e-mail. you take these words are turn them into him giving you an "Atta Boy!" I am wondering who he's allegedly talking to, then. Allegedly? He's talking to you. He's talking to all of us. Stebie is getting so that he doesn't know who to believe anymore...therefore the "alleged" word. :-) He would describe Benedict the Sixteenth as "allegedly" the Pope! :-) Didn't you follow the link to the ARRL site? Go back up the the top, and click on the blue thingy. Let Stebie figure it out for himself. Good mental therapy for the congenitally confused. :-) Those problems don't seem to be manifest here. Hi! Stebie blind as well as nuts. |
|
wrote:
From: on Thurs 9 Jun 2005 19:04 K=D8=88B wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote . . Mom hollered out the window "Don't you even THINK about peeing on that bush and get back in here!" w3rv And you heard that last when? At age 36? At least he heard it. We've been telling you that your lies and deceit are unwelcome for years and you don't seem to hear it. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee Flint" wrote Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that Part 97 does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered. I think you're correct Dee. The FCC rules are silent on the form of actual examination: §97.503 Element standards. (a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK. Element 1: 5 words per minute. Interestingly, the NCVEC has chosen to ignore the "ability to send correctly by hand" clause of the rules. Probably just following the example of the FCC itself. I have read that the FCC dropped the sending test as it was rare for someone to be unable to send even though they could receive. The more common scenario is that most people can send faster than they can receive anyway. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: . . . . number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in stone 4-5 years ago. Conversly though the waivers problem is still out there . . . No the waivers problem is over as waivers are no longer allowed since the only code test is 5wpm. Ooops. . I've obviously gotten out of touch with this one and it looks like I need to get back in touch. My recollection is that when the FCC didn't competely eliminate code tests for the disabled they claimed they couldn't do that because the treaty demanded a code test disabilities or not. That's right. But remember that the whole waiver thing came about because Papa Bush wanted to do a king a favor. FCC cited the treaty as the reason they couldn't just waiver all code tests. Papa Bush was kinda anti-code because they wanted to get rid of ROs on ships (like oil tankers) and their salaries. But said king is now dead. And Shrub thinks BPL is a good idea. Now that the treaty makes code tests optional the FCC can't use that "excuse" any longer so it seems to me that we're back to the possibility of somebody looking for a medical waiver vs. any code test at all . . ?? . . ? Sure - but has anybody really asked for that? Remember it wasn't US hams who asked for waivers in the first place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote Papa Bush was kinda anti-code............... Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Incredible stretch! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote Papa Bush was kinda anti-code............... Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I am glad you enjoyed that, Hans. Incredible stretch! =20 The oil-tanker thing is true, btw. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: From: "bb" on Thurs 9 Jun 2005 15:26 K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: You just dismissed the fact that Haynie is seeing a real problem here, he is beginning to tell hams to stop acting like such immature jerks and get with the program-- Has he been reading old copies of Wayne Green's editorials in "73 Magazine?" I think Jim Haynie has been peeking into THIS newsgroup of late. He was in here once a few years ago. We corresponded briefly via private e-mail. I hope he didn't overdose on W0EX and K4YZ. They'd cause anyone to swear off of ham radio forever. you take these words are turn them into him giving you an "Atta Boy!" I am wondering who he's allegedly talking to, then. Allegedly? He's talking to you. He's talking to all of us. Stebie is getting so that he doesn't know who to believe anymore...therefore the "alleged" word. :-) He would describe Benedict the Sixteenth as "allegedly" the Pope! :-) Paranoia does that. Didn't you follow the link to the ARRL site? Go back up the the top, and click on the blue thingy. Let Stebie figure it out for himself. Good mental therapy for the congenitally confused. :-) He'll never get there all by himself. Those problems don't seem to be manifest here. Hi! Stebie blind as well as nuts. I think he identifies with the hero in "The Who" song, Pinball Wizard. Despite the movie "Tommy" the song never got popular with Steve until the other guy, Sir John, re-recorded it. |
K4YZ wrote: We've been telling you that your lies and deceit are unwelcome for years and you don't seem to hear it. But yours are welcomed and enjoyed by all. |
John Smith wrote: That is a real trait of the group on the bands isn't it--personal attacks, planting doubt, suspicion, rumor, innuendo... And then, I suppose you expect those watching such a performance to "respect" you--you are probably quite angry when they don't--what is next, threats? John Don't give anymore of them that idea. |
bb:
LOL! grin Warmest regards, John "bb" wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: That is a real trait of the group on the bands isn't it--personal attacks, planting doubt, suspicion, rumor, innuendo... And then, I suppose you expect those watching such a performance to "respect" you--you are probably quite angry when they don't--what is next, threats? John Don't give anymore of them that idea. |
|
|
wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on May 29, 9:57 pm wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Many people lament that there is not enough interest in Ham radio by young people. Agreed - but how much would be enough? Dunno. I personally agree somewhat with Brian K's assertion that the absolute number of Hams could indeed drop without serious problems. On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good mix of ages. Younger hobbyists have to be there to "take orders" from the older ones? :-) You'd like it if we younger folks took orders from you, but we won't. Deal with it, Len. There are often many reasons given for this deficiency, and somewhat less "fixes". One of the reasons that is given very often is that Amateur radio is in some sort of competition with the Internet. Every activity is in competition with every other. Among teen-agers? How can you possibly say that? :-) Surely. Comparisons between the two show that Amateur radio is a tad bit more involved than buying a computer, doing a dialup and surfing the net. Will a person who's idea of a hobby is clicking a mouse button find Amateur radio a tad intimidating? Tsk, tsk. Ham speak with forked tongue on inpugning "no intellect required." A sort of Deus Ex Mousina attitude. Mike, you were never into computers and BBSs before the Macintosh mouse debuted, were you? Lots and lots of ALL ages were BBSing, having a great time without the GUI, well before Windows, when not on-line they were doing programming, writing games, "unprotecting" protected disks, experimenting with the first modem advancements, etc. Budding authors were practicing writing and established writers were generating manuscripts with relative ease. Accounting people had discovered the first spreadsheets and increased the efficiency of their inventory, financial records, establishing both schedules and prices of products they were making. ALL BEFORE the advent of either the computer Mouse or GUI. Actually, both the mouse and GUI came from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, about 1971. That center produced the first "personal computer" in its modern form (a computer for each user rather than a timeshared mainframe, networking between users' computers, the GUI and mouse, filesharing, etc.) Xerox management did not realize what they had right in front of them, and the ideas were produced and marketed by others. Some of us were using computers back in the punchcard and paper-tape days. Yeah, like me! Ancient IBM mainframes that took up an entire room in the late '70s. First personal size computer was the venerable Trash-80 with a tape drive around 1981. First computer hooked to a modem was a C-64 a few years later. Got a number of the Commodore Amigas. Had a A500, an A2000,A3000, and an A4000. Got the Macs starting with a II-CX, then to a 7100, 7500, G3, G4, and now a G5. PC's from the 286, 386 PS2, Several laptops, and some HP Pavilions at home. I've been around computers a while, despite diatribes to the contrary . To get an HF transceiver in their vehicles, both young and old could buy a set of transceiver, antenna, microphone for under $200 from Sears, K-Mart, Wall-Mart, etc. in the morning and have it installed and working in the afternoon. And it had a few channels, one mode and 5 watts of power at most. Of course that was "CB" and therefore "lowly" and, to some, "criminal." :-) [all before the GUI and mouse] The way many cb radios were used was in clear violation of the Communications Act and FCC regulations. I have to admit that putting up one's ham station DOES take some smarts. Yes, it does. One copies an antenna design out of the ARRL Antenna Handbook, getting somewhat close to the dimensions. Why "somewhat close"? My experience has been that it must be a small "somewhat" indeed! Is there some rule that "real electronikers" can't use reference material? Real technicians don't look up pinouts either! ;^) One can copy a whole transceiver design out of the ARRL Handbook, then rescue themselves by scrapping the unworking project with a ready-built transceiver bought at HRO (reviews of performance presented by the "ARRL Lab" and published in QST). Just because your projects don't work doesn't mean others will fail. They can even buy coax cable assemblies when they are unable to put on PL-259s right, even buy whole antenna kits. I'd say that was "plug and play" on the same order as PCs, but before Microsith came out with that marketing/sales phrase. :-) How many amateur radio HF receivers, transmitters or transceivers have *you* built, Len? A computer has many uses, from being a glorified typewriter to a serious research/calculation device to gaming to producing all sorts of multimedia stuff. Don't forget surfing porn. A great way to build character! 8^) Tsk, Mike. You never saw "dirty pictures" elsewhere (not over a computer) when you were "building (your own) character?" :-) Most decent white-collar jobs today require computer skills. Many blue-collar jobs also require them. True enough. There aren't a lot of businesses or corporations that need "ham radio skills" (even discounting morse code). Back before the GUI and computer mousies, push-to-talk two-way radios were common in business large and small, with public safety organizations, in the military, and in government. All easy to use...and NOT on amateur bands nor needing morse code skills. Not missing a point. To me, computers are like underwear - pretty much gotta have it. I've not seen any "HANES" computer bramds in stores... Some people live in places where putting up an antenna - *any* antenna - is banned by CC&Rs. A family isn't likely to move so that Junior can put up a G5RV. Unless either of you have some NEW info courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau, you will find the MOST residences in the USA do NOT have such restrictions. How many? What sort of antennas do *you* have, Len? Heh! i had a thought -maybe we could get some of the rebellious types to go stealth! 8^) You haven't heard of MOBILE or even HAND-HELD transceivers?!? Actually, I think you missed my point! My point is that if a person is making a choice of hobbies to get into, the concept of choosing between Amateur radio and using a cell phone just isn't in the mix. I see trendy teens with cell phones glued to their heads every day. I can only assume that they spend hours each day on them. I can guarantee that that kid has never considered amateur radio as a hobby. How do you present this "guarantee?" In writing? From "long experience" in observation? [remember there are a few of us who've been around longer and seen MORE teeners - even been one once - have MANY DIFFERENT observations of others over the past half century] How many children have you parented, Len? I doubt they consider their cells as a hobby either. So it is pretty hard to think of that as competition. Competition for teeners' TIME. They have the same 24 hours a day as adults and infants, the same need to sleep, eat, and do other things (such as attend school). How many TV shows and movies ever depict engineering or technical folks at all, compared to other fields like health care or law enforcement? TV shows and Movies are for ENTERTAINMENT of enough customers that will pay the Producers of same...and artists. Entertainment shows go for the Emotions of the audience. One show made a start toward a good positive presentation of engineers and techies. It was Star Trek. The original series had a very kind treatment of Scottie, the engineer. ...who ran the works of a SPACESHIP (circa 1967) as thunk up by MOVIE people, the Producers, the Writers, the scenery and prop designers. NOT "techie" insofar as our then-present society was. EMOTION stuff, NOT education. I graduated high school in 1972 - the golden age of space and technology, right? Well, pretty close to the end of it.... NOT EVEN CLOSE. Having been IN the "space business" since 1964 and working for the manufacturer of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (as well as the Apollo first-stage engine), you both missed the Space Shuttle program and well over a hundred STS missions. I didn't miss any of them, Len. You've MISSED the unmanned vehicle missions and negated the tremendous data gathered by the Mars rovers and the trips to the outer edges of our solar system. Nope. Didn't miss them at all. I remember all the way back to the Mercury flights with chimps ("A monkey's gonna make the first flight!") Shepard, Grissom, Glenn, the Gemini program, the tragedy of the Apollo 1 fire, the Mariner, Viking, Pioneer and Voyager programs, etc. Now Cassini sends incredible pictures and data from Saturn. No sirens found on Titan, though. You two have completely ignored when the "personal computer" made its debuts beginning in the mid-1970s, and suddenly skyrocketing after 1980. Not at all, Len. I was right there. You've missed the first computer networking of BBSs that began in the late 1970s or have recognized the Internet phenomenon happening after it went public in 1991. Perhaps you've both become too blase' about computers and the Internet? This NG is about amateur radio, Len. Something you are not a part of. My basic thesis is that we as a society are moving toward the celebration of the ordinary, the mundane. We have lost our edge. And that can only last for so long. Tsk, your own middle-age angst is mumbling. :-) I've heard the SAME sort of complaint by others about their generations' folly for about six decades. :-) So you're old, Len. Big deal. You grunt and grumble, rant and rave more than anyone here. If we can celebrate those who *DO* things instead of simply consume things, we might reverse that trend. That has been going on in nearly all technological endeavors for as long as I can remember. The DO-ers are celebrated. Yep - like the hams who pioneered HF radio in 1923... A survey of the IEEE Milestone history program in electronics demonstrates that, a program that is shared with other technological associations. The birth of the first "hard drive" has been Milestoned recently...IBM's RAMAC and the Model 350 disk storage system (1956) out of a small IBM lab in Silicon Valley. But, to be celebrated, you MUST do something that others consider more remarkable than average. Your own personal accomplishment is NOT enough. One isn't a DO-er just by making something and showing it on the Internet to a wide ranging viewing audience, then proclaiming its "greatness." Neither is one a DO-er by explaining what they "will" do and expecting plaudits BEFORE they've ever done anything. You mean like the person who posts their military and work experience over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, oops, you missed one, Jim! in a failed attempt to win the praise and admiration of others, even though it has nothing to do with amateur radio? Or the person who says "I'm going for Extra right out of the box", but as of 5 years, 5 months and 27 days hasn't done so? Or the person who talks endlessly about their supposed technical knowledge prowess but cannot show a single home-made amateur-radio-related project or practical article? - Mike KB3EIA - |
From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 16 Jun 2005 12:52
wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on May 29, 9:57 pm wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Many people lament that there is not enough interest in Ham radio by young people. Agreed - but how much would be enough? Dunno. I personally agree somewhat with Brian K's assertion that the absolute number of Hams could indeed drop without serious problems. On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good mix of ages. Younger hobbyists have to be there to "take orders" from the older ones? :-) You'd like it if we younger folks took orders from you, but we won't. Deal with it, Len. Tsk. Jimmie sounds all upset. Nobody is telling him any "orders." Not to worry. Those who've never served in the military won't get bothered about taking orders. However, "radio manufacturers" very much need to take orders. As many as they can handle! :-) Jimmie said he was a "radio manufacturer." Better give him an order right now, keep him solvent. [or was that "soylent...?"] Some of us were using computers back in the punchcard and paper-tape days. Yeah, like me! Ancient IBM mainframes that took up an entire room in the late '70s. First personal size computer was the venerable Trash-80 with a tape drive around 1981. First computer hooked to a modem was a C-64 a few years later. Got a number of the Commodore Amigas. Had a A500, an A2000,A3000, and an A4000. Got the Macs starting with a II-CX, then to a 7100, 7500, G3, G4, and now a G5. PC's from the 286, 386 PS2, Several laptops, and some HP Pavilions at home. Woweee! Keep that consumer market afloat with buy, buy, buy... Ever BUILD your own PC, Michael? Like etch the PC, drill them holes, solder them pins, PROGRAM the monitor ROM? No? Tsk. Remember: You can't say "first personal" in here. That sort of talk is CB trash and CBers are supposed to be the evil scourges of radio, satan's henchmen on earth... I've been around computers a while, despite diatribes to the contrary . Tsk, tsk. When I was young we carved our own ICs out of wood.... :-) To get an HF transceiver in their vehicles, both young and old could buy a set of transceiver, antenna, microphone for under $200 from Sears, K-Mart, Wall-Mart, etc. in the morning and have it installed and working in the afternoon. And it had a few channels, one mode and 5 watts of power at most. 23 or 40 channels is "few?" In an urban area of 10 million+, yes, too few. :-) But, "5 watts of power" can WORK THE WORLD!!! :-) Only 5 Watts of RF output? Nay, see the General Radiotelephone CB manufactured by the thousands here in beautiful uptown Burbank. 35 Watts out with the "modification" clearly spelled out in the instruction manual! :-) The way many cb radios were used was in clear violation of the Communications Act and FCC regulations. Riiiiight you are Mr. Noblestoneofall...all CBers are dastard souless lawbreakers and should all be taken out and shot. All the righteous, noble, "federally authorized" hams deserve a lifetime of respect and admiration for being scrupulously honest with everything! My experience has been that it must be a small "somewhat" indeed! Is there some rule that "real electronikers" can't use reference material? With ham radio among the mighty macho morsemen, ALL you need is morsemanship. That's enough. "Morse gets through when everything else will..." B. Burke, 2004 Real technicians don't look up pinouts either! ;^) Oh? You "KNOW" every single tube, transistor, IC pinout by heart? If you do, you're ten kinds of dum**** braggart, Michael. What sort of antennas do *you* have, Len? Two. But the number of covenants against them are only one and that one was issued by the FAA. :-) How many children have you parented, Len? Ah! The Master Pediatrician accuses! :-) Last time I looked, NO ONE in ANY discipline of electronics was required to be a parent in order to work in that field! :-) Would you accept an MD's signed test paper on sperm count? :-) HOW MANY CHILDREN AS JIMMIE MICCOLIS "PARENTED?" So far, we've not heard any answer in public...and are not likely to. Jimmie wishes to be dominatrix here? This NG is about amateur radio, Len. Something you are not a part of. This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, Jimmie, NOT pediatrics or How To Raise Kids. So far, we have to assume YOU ARE NOT A PART OF THAT. So you're old, Len. Big deal. You grunt and grumble, rant and rave more than anyone here. No, I don't. :-) If we can celebrate those who *DO* things instead of simply consume things, we might reverse that trend. That has been going on in nearly all technological endeavors for as long as I can remember. The DO-ers are celebrated. Yep - like the hams who pioneered HF radio in 1923... Woweee! Like they got TOSSED OUT of MF and had to go where wavelengths were shorter than 200 meters...by ACT OF LAW!!!! Some "pioneering!!!" The first of the "homeless" in radio and now you say they were "pioneers?!?" Geez, talk about rationalizations!!! You mean like the person who posts their military and work experience over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, oops, you missed one, Jim! Awwwwwwww! You poor guys, never worked the Big Leagues of radio? Well, somebody in here used to say (in a bad paraphrase), "It ain't braggin' if ya done it!" I did it. I ain't braggin. :-) in a failed attempt to win the praise and admiration of others, even though it has nothing to do with amateur radio? Tsk, tsk. That's a perfect description of Jimmie Miccolis!!! :-) Or the person who says "I'm going for Extra right out of the box", but as of 5 years, 5 months and 27 days hasn't done so? Tsk, tsk. No Holy Vows were taken in the writing of that. :-) I can't be "ex-communicated." I'm still communicating... :-) Or the person who talks endlessly about their supposed technical knowledge prowess but cannot show a single home-made amateur-radio-related project or practical article? Woweeee!!! "Radio manufacturer" Jimmie shows ONE picture of a tube rig "designed" and built in the 1990s? :-) Fabulous...that's even better than the 30-year-old crib from Superior Electric on autotransformers "published" in the Electric Radio webzine! Wheeee...lots of real swell PRACTICAL things to do...nothing at all like that damn useless "theory" that mighty macho morsemen hate so much. "Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Hams pioneer radio in 1923!" Run right out and buy a copy for a dime from the newsboy! :-) |
"Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Hams pioneer radio in 1923!" Run right out and buy a copy for a dime from the newsboy! :-) / Septuagenarian Lennie, like his Relys, runneth over yet again. |
|
wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 16 Jun 2005 12:52 wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on May 29, 9:57 pm wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Many people lament that there is not enough interest in Ham radio by young people. Agreed - but how much would be enough? Dunno. I personally agree somewhat with Brian K's assertion that the absolute number of Hams could indeed drop without serious problems. On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good mix of ages. Younger hobbyists have to be there to "take orders" from the older ones? :-) You'd like it if we younger folks took orders from you, but we won't. Deal with it, Len. Tsk. TS, Len. You're not in charge. Deal with it. Jimmie sounds all upset. Not me. You're the one SHOUTING and getting all worked up. Nobody is telling him any "orders." You'd like it if we younger folks took orders from you, but we won't. Deal with it, Len. Some of us were using computers back in the punchcard and paper-tape days. Yeah, like me! Ancient IBM mainframes that took up an entire room in the late '70s. First personal size computer was the venerable Trash-80 with a tape drive around 1981. First computer hooked to a modem was a C-64 a few years later. Got a number of the Commodore Amigas. Had a A500, an A2000,A3000, and an A4000. Got the Macs starting with a II-CX, then to a 7100, 7500, G3, G4, and now a G5. PC's from the 286, 386 PS2, Several laptops, and some HP Pavilions at home. Woweee! Keep that consumer market afloat with buy, buy, buy... I remember the 110 baud acoustic modems to connect to the '370 system at Uni-Coll. Ever BUILD your own PC, Michael? Like etch the PC, drill them holes, solder them pins, PROGRAM the monitor ROM? No? Tsk. Ever DESIGN and BUILD an HF amateur radio transceiver, Len? Not from someone else's plans, but from your own design? Didn't think so. Remember: You can't say "first personal" in here. What's wrong with "name"? To get an HF transceiver in their vehicles, both young and old could buy a set of transceiver, antenna, microphone for under $200 from Sears, K-Mart, Wall-Mart, etc. in the morning and have it installed and working in the afternoon. And it had a few channels, one mode and 5 watts of power at most. 23 or 40 channels is "few?" Compared to the frequencies any radio amateur can use, it's very few. In an urban area of 10 million+, yes, too few. :-) Too many, given how they were and are used... But, "5 watts of power" can WORK THE WORLD!!! :-) On the right frequencies, with the right mode and a skilled operator. You wouldn't know about any of that, Len. Only 5 Watts of RF output? No. Input. Nay, see the General Radiotelephone CB manufactured by the thousands here in beautiful uptown Burbank. Did you work there, Len? 35 Watts out with the "modification" clearly spelled out in the instruction manual! :-) Seems like you endorse that sort of thing. Says volumes about your character, Len. The way many cb radios were used was in clear violation of the Communications Act and FCC regulations. Riiiiight you are Mr. Noblestoneofall... Who? all CBers are dastard souless lawbreakers and should all be taken out and shot. No, they should just follow the rules. Using radio to avoid compliance with the law (such as speed limits) is a violation of the Communications Act. Failure to properly identify is a violation of FCC rules. Modification of equipment to unauthorized levels of power is a violation of FCC rules. All the righteous, noble, "federally authorized" hams deserve a lifetime of respect and admiration for being scrupulously honest with everything! Would you rather that hams followed Part 97 the way cb users follow Part 95? Real technicians don't look up pinouts either! ;^) Oh? You "KNOW" every single tube, transistor, IC pinout by heart? If you do, you're ten kinds of dum**** braggart, Michael. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, Len. What sort of antennas do *you* have, Len? Two. But the number of covenants against them are only one and that one was issued by the FAA. :-) How many children have you parented, Len? Ah! The Master Pediatrician accuses! :-) How many, Len? Last time I looked, NO ONE in ANY discipline of electronics was required to be a parent in order to work in that field! :-) But *you* have asked FCC to exclude everyone under the age of 14 years from any class of amateur radio license. Without *any* example of problems caused by the licensing of young people as radio amateurs. So it's relevant to ask what experience you have as a parent. It's clear you have none, and are trying to divert attention from that fact. Would you accept an MD's signed test paper on sperm count? :-) There's much more to parenting than biology, Len. But you wouldn't know that. HOW MANY CHILDREN AS JIMMIE MICCOLIS "PARENTED?" "You cannot answer a question with another question" - Len Anderson It's not about me, Len. I'm not the one asked FCC to exclude everyone under the age of 14 years from any class of amateur radio license, without *any* example of problems caused by the licensing of young people as radio amateurs. *You* are. So far, we've not heard any answer in public... Not from you. and are not likely to. It's not about me. I'm not the one asked FCC to exclude everyone under the age of 14 years from any class of amateur radio license, without *any* example of problems caused by the licensing of young people as radio amateurs. *You* are. Besides, what level of parenting would you respect? From your behavior here, it's clear it wouldn't matter how many children I'd parented or what they accomplished. You'd find a way to make fun of them. It's what you do - we've seen it plenty of times. This NG is about amateur radio, Len. Something you are not a part of. This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, Jimmie, NOT pediatrics or How To Raise Kids. You have asked FCC to exclude everyone under the age of 14 years from any class of amateur radio license, without *any* example of problems caused by the licensing of young people as radio amateurs. Yet you have no apparent experience as a parent. Tsk. So you're old, Len. Big deal. You grunt and grumble, rant and rave more than anyone here. No, I don't. :-) Maybe John Smith does more these past few days... Maybe you and he are one and the same. If we can celebrate those who *DO* things instead of simply consume things, we might reverse that trend. That has been going on in nearly all technological endeavors for as long as I can remember. The DO-ers are celebrated. Yep - like the hams who pioneered HF radio in 1923... Woweee! Like they got TOSSED OUT of MF and had to go where wavelengths were shorter than 200 meters...by ACT OF LAW!!!! The "professional experts" thought those frequencies were useless - that's why amateurs got them. You mean like the person who posts their military and work experience over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, oops, you missed one, Jim! You're right, Mike. You mean like the person who posts their military and work experience over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, in a failed attempt to win the praise and admiration of others, even though it has nothing to do with amateur radio? Tsk, tsk. That's a perfect description of Len Anderson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or the person who says "I'm going for Extra right out of the box", but as of 5 years, 5 months and 27 days hasn't done so? Tsk, tsk. No Holy Vows were taken in the writing of that. :-) You haven't done it. Or the person who talks endlessly about their supposed technical knowledge prowess but cannot show a single home-made amateur-radio-related project or practical article? Woweeee!!! "Radio manufacturer" Jimmie shows ONE picture of a tube rig "designed" and built in the 1990s? :-) More than what you've done. Fabulous...that's even better than the 30-year-old crib from Superior Electric on autotransformers "published" in the Electric Radio webzine! Who did that? Not me. |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2005 04:47:43 -0700, wrote:
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 16 Jun 2005 12:52 wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on May 29, 9:57 pm wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: snip So you're old, Len. Big deal. You grunt and grumble, rant and rave more than anyone here. No, I don't. :-) Maybe John Smith does more these past few days... Maybe you and he are one and the same. Oh oh. The "Everybody might be somebody else" thing again..... We're down to two degrees of seperation! :) snip ("73 Jim, N2EY" sig missing) 73, Leo |
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
wrote: Ever DESIGN and BUILD an HF amateur radio transceiver, Len? Not from someone else's plans, but from your own design? Didn't think so. Lennieboy couldn't even build one from someone eles's plans. That claim is not necessarily correct. Maybe Len could, maybe he couldn't. All we know for sure is that he hasn't. (If he had, we'd never hear the end of it). All the righteous, noble, "federally authorized" hams deserve a lifetime of respect and admiration for being scrupulously honest with everything! Would you rather that hams followed Part 97 the way cb users follow Part 95? Seems Lennieboy scoffs at those who go by the rules, that speaks volumns about him I would say. He does seem to have trouble with certain radio regulations. For example, there was a long series of diatribes from Len about how ITU-R wasn't really a "treaty". Len also claimed that all hams could legally operate with licenses that were expired but in the grace period. Wrong, of course. He's also claimed that Novices and Advanceds will have to retest to retain their privileges - also wrong, their licenses can be renewed and modified indefinitely; FCC just isn't issuing new licenses of those classes. Len will go on and on about how awful ham radio, and many hams, are - accorcding to him. But you will never see a single negative word from him about cb radio. Not one. You'd think cb was an absolute paragon of rules compliance and a model of an orderly radio service, if Len was your source of info. Seems he is jealous since hams are 'federally authorized' to use the ham bands Sure seems that way! and he can't become a member of the fraternity. Why not? He can get a license just like anyone else. All it takes is passing the required tests. Heck, the Technician has not required a code test for 14+ years, and 5 years ago its written test requirements were cut almost in half. And it gives all amateur radio operating privileges above 50 MHz. It's not about me, Len. I'm not the one asked FCC to exclude everyone under the age of 14 years from any class of amateur radio license, without *any* example of problems caused by the licensing of young people as radio amateurs. *You* are. Just about any 14 year old or younger would make a better ham than Lennieboy. Many already have, but poor Lennieboy can't make the grade. That is why he doesn't want 14 year olds getting a license, it makes him look bad. Maybe. It sure does seem to burn Len's toast that some of us were hams before age 14. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: Michael Coslo on Jun 17, 9:51 am
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 16 Jun 2005 12:52 wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on May 29, 9:57 pm wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Many people lament that there is not enough interest in Ham radio by young people. Awwww...ya gotta be kidding! :-) You mean all those young people today aren't wanting to study morsemanship and beep to other lands? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Wow! "Not" having one's OWN RADIO STATION! They don't know what they are missing...[koff, koff, choke, BWAHAH... ] Yeah, like me! Ancient IBM mainframes that took up an entire room in the late '70s. First personal size computer was the venerable Trash-80 with a tape drive around 1981. First computer hooked to a modem was a C-64 a few years later. Got a number of the Commodore Amigas. Had a A500, an A2000,A3000, and an A4000. Got the Macs starting with a II-CX, then to a 7100, 7500, G3, G4, and now a G5. PC's from the 286, 386 PS2, Several laptops, and some HP Pavilions at home. [tsk, you still didn't see where you wrote "first personal?" :-) ] Woweee! Keep that consumer market afloat with buy, buy, buy... Ever BUILD your own PC, Michael? Like etch the PC, drill them holes, solder them pins, PROGRAM the monitor ROM? No? Tsk. Yes! Not as a PC, but I have designed boards, taken the artwork through the photo stages, sensitized and exposed the boards, etched them and put 'em together. Professionally. I've programmed ROM's also, though not often. Sorry, that won't do under the newsgroup rules. The ONLY way to prove that is to have your own web page with pictures, hopefully including "admiring neighbors" gushing over those might doings... I've been around computers a while, despite diatribes to the contrary . Tsk, tsk. When I was young we carved our own ICs out of wood.... hehe. BREAKTHROUGH! A PCTA with some sense of humor! :-) To get an HF transceiver in their vehicles, both young and old could buy a set of transceiver, antenna, microphone for under $200 from Sears, K-Mart, Wall-Mart, etc. in the morning and have it installed and working in the afternoon. And it had a few channels, one mode and 5 watts of power at most. 23 or 40 channels is "few?" In an urban area of 10 million+, yes, too few. :-) But, "5 watts of power" can WORK THE WORLD!!! :-) Sometimes! I recall a PSK31 exchange with a fellow from Australia. That's just about as far as you can go without coming back. Not quite. A few Watts to the Sea of Tranquility...over a 250 thousand mile path would do... :-) Riiiiight you are Mr. Noblestoneofall...all CBers are dastard souless lawbreakers and should all be taken out and shot. You talkin to *me*? No, was talkin' to Robert DeNiro. Taxi anyone? Where Jodie? Actually, it's hard to tell PCTAs apart nowadays. Their mantras are practically in harmony..."preserve the status quo as much as possible"..."obey the LAW and TAKE that REQUIRED code test!!" (as if the law cannot ever be changed)..."I didn't like CW until I HAD to learn it to get a license and then found it 'fun'!" (as if all would find it 'fun' if they tried to do so)." Real technicians don't look up pinouts either! ;^) Oh? You "KNOW" every single tube, transistor, IC pinout by heart? If you do, you're ten kinds of dum**** braggart, Michael. You have chided me in the past for not *getting* a sarcasm in a post. Consider yourself chided. No huhu. As I said, all PCTAs sound alike nowadays and so few have either a sense of today's reality or of humor. Then again, there was one in here last year who was bragging all over the place about ballooning to "the edge of space" and seemed to want all kinds of 'congratulations' for that achievement before ever doing a thing about it. I digress. Sorry. :-) Yep - like the hams who pioneered HF radio in 1923... Woweee! Like they got TOSSED OUT of MF and had to go where wavelengths were shorter than 200 meters...by ACT OF LAW!!!! Some "pioneering!!!" The first of the "homeless" in radio and now you say they were "pioneers?!?" Geez, talk about rationalizations!!! Necessity is the mother of invention - and innovation. What "invention?" Two experimenters tried out radio for the first time in 1896. That's 27 years prior, over a generation. "Innovation?" What was to "innovate" with spark transmitters that had already been designed many different ways? Awwwwwwww! You poor guys, never worked the Big Leagues of radio? Never particularly wanted to! ;^) You should have tried it even if you hadn't wanted to...you might have found it to be FUN! :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk. That was called "serving one's country" in the military. Three dozen high-power HF transmitters to be in charge of each shift. OPERATING them. ["dipping the plate, peaking the grid" during QSYs, just like the boat-anchor folks do today, 52 years later!] Jimmie no like that. Jimmie say that OLD. Tsk. Jimmie never do dat. Kellie no like that. Kellie say dat just "meter reading." Kellie never do dat. Stevie weavie, da worsie nursie no like that. He say ALL LIES! Stebie never do dat. Buzzie Wuzzie, from da TV fiction outer-space shows, no like dat. Buzzie never do dat. All PCTA mad about dat. Poor PCTA. Too much beeping. NCTA change law. Bye-bye beeping test. |
From: Leo on Jun 17, 5:46 pm
On 17 Jun 2005 04:47:43 -0700, wrote: wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 16 Jun 2005 12:52 wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on May 29, 9:57 pm wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: So you're old, Len. Big deal. You grunt and grumble, rant and rave more than anyone here. No, I don't. :-) Maybe John Smith does more these past few days... Maybe you and he are one and the same. Oh oh. The "Everybody might be somebody else" thing again..... Jimmie is into his paranoid phase again. Tsk, tsk. Too much exposure to beeping is what causes it. We're down to two degrees of seperation! :) Nah. Jimmie is off on a tangent again, trying to figure the angles. He is only fitting hisself for a hypoten-oose. :-) snip ("73 Jim, N2EY" sig missing) OH! HEAVENS ABOVE! NO "SIG!!!" TERRIBLE! :-) 73, Leo We wonder how many kids Jimmie has "parented?" He no say. Jimmie not member IEEE yet claims to be "in electronics." Jimmie not vewwy professional. Maybe he NOT in electronics? |
|
Well, my 7 yr. old lass made five QSO's today during Kid's Day, two of them
were CW contacts. So QSL cards go out today for the "young'un" who managed to practice enough over the past few weeks to pound out my call, her name, favorite color, age, QTH and wrap it up with a not-too-shabby 73. (I helped w/her copy tho.) http://www.arrl.org/FandES/ead/kd-rules.html I couldn't have asked for a better Father's Day gift. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com