From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 14:39

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10

"bb" wrote in message
roups.com...

Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all
white because at the end of the day there are still people who support
the wall.

All purposeful action starts with an idea - a dream, as it were.
First the idea, then the actions to make the idea become
a reality.

Sort of like showing one's REAL patriotism by volunteering for
milirary service?

The FCC is NOT a regulator of "dreams." All it does is mitigate
interference in the civil side of the EM spectrum by U.S.
citizens.

The FCC is NOT any "moral arbiter" of anything but its own
regulations and rulings in regards to U.S. law.

The person who will not allow him/herself to believe they can do
something is already defeated.

tries to sound like a Reverend on morse code,
preaching from some ivy-covered pulpit. [pulpit fiction
but without a Travolta] Is this a prelude to (roll drums)

...A Sermon On The Antenna Mount?

Can become an artist-illustrator, traveling from
place to place, painting portraits? Sam Morse did that. Sam
and his financial backer Al Vail invented morse code. ART
with minor success at it in any media REQUIRES a built-in
aptitutde for that (or an excellent PR/gallery person to sell
"great art").

I started out WORKING as an artist-illustrator because I did
have the built-in talent/aptitude for that. Not only that, my
completed works were BETTER in any media than Sam Morse's.

That reply has very little to do with "moral imperatives" or
the FCC or with other than totally refute the
specious (and irrelevant) supposition that a government agency
is a moral/motivational arbiter of what some do as a HOBBY.

---

The current Morse Code test in the USA requires the correct
recognition of 25 consecutive Morse Code symbols, or correct
answers to 7 out of 10 fill-in-the-blank questions based on
5 minutes of Morse Code text. The entire text used for the
test consists of no more than 125 Morse Code symbols
transmitted in no less than 5 minutes.

Duhhhhh...

This test has been compared to learning to recognize 41 words
of a foreign language, which is a fair analogy.

Ridiculous, specious "comparison."

Morse code is simply the arhythmic monotonic tone patterns to
represent the letters, numbers, and some punctuation in the
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It was never intended to be anything else.

I already KNOW, have used, all without ANY license or "test,"
MORE than 41 words in each of three foreign languages. Your
"comparison" is preposterous.

It seems incredible that such a simple test of such a basic
radio communication skill would be the cause of so much
controversy and acrimony from those opposed to it.

Oh, my, incredulosity puzzles , possibly because of
his incredible stubborn attitude of maintaining the OLD STANDARDS
forever and ever...and his unmitigated gall and arrogance by
insisting that some long-ago morse test passing SHALL be passed
by newcomers. Forever.

The FCC uses "licensing" as a means of EM spectrum mitigation,
NOT to "control the moral/ethical behavior of hobbyist hams."

The FCC is NOT an academic institution whose "tests" are any
sort of equivalent to academic skill/knowledge "qualification."

That Test Element 1 remains IN the amateur radio regulations is
due primarily to the incredible acrimony of those olde-tyme
hammes who cannot bear to lose the one link to their personal
"fame" that set them "up above their fellows" (as hobbyists).

Now, , study hard, devote yourself to the Morse art
of painting, but you won't be in anything but small-bore in
the caliber of Morse art. APTITUDE lack cannot be overcome by
DREAMS.

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


Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

[snip]


---

OK, here's one to toss around:

Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in
the "60 meter" region.

Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either:

1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to
2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc..

or

2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such
as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the
same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc.

Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz
overall?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are
nicely
space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd
like a
lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be
widened,
then a phone section could be added.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans.


It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think
and one opinion on how things are?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all
white because at the end of the day there are still people who support
the wall.


There is no wall but what people create in their own minds.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:

The current Morse Code test in the USA requires the correct
recognition of 25 consecutive Morse Code symbols, or correct
answers to 7 out of 10 fill-in-the-blank questions based on
5 minutes of Morse Code text.

Please cite the USA definition of Morse Code. Thank you.

Mike Coslo wrote:

Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very
interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use,
which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with
many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr)
coverage?

Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch
and wire up a new switch for you.

bb wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very
interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use,
which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with
many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr)
coverage?

Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch
and wire up a new switch for you.

It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more
positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too.
Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on,
and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would
probably just have to be written off as a loss. Newer equipment would be
more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue
to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment
gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would
possibly not be convertible

Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most
all of the digital equipment up to date of change.

Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single
antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general
purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one
that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas
could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not
accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the
major HF bands will not be harmonically related.

All in all, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think
and one opinion on how things are?

Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all
white because at the end of the day there are still people who support
the wall.

So what are you in HERE complaining for, Brian...?!?!

It's those unlicensed commissioners that Lennie's always
interjecting into his rants who are in control of that...

And what do YOU care...In your master's opinion, anyone who's
already been tested on something and for which a regulation change
would not affect should not have any say in the matter...

Are you again disagreeing with your admired master but unwilling
to just stand up and say it?

Steve, K4YZ

bb wrote:

Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch
and wire up a new switch for you.

More lessons learned from Lennie?

Jim Miccolis has spoken to you in nothing but civil terms.

Yet here you are addressing him in diminutives.

What's up with that?

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very
interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use,
which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with
many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr)
coverage?

Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch
and wire up a new switch for you.

It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more
positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too.
Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on,
and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would
probably just have to be written off as a loss.

Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station.

Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they
are on.

Newer equipment would be
more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue
to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment
gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would
possibly not be convertible

People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever
held a position of "authority" in MARS?

Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most
all of the digital equipment up to date of change.

Knock yourself out.

Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single
antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general
purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one
that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas
could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not
accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the
major HF bands will not be harmonically related.

Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related.

All in all, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Congrats. You've just made "Full" member.

bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more
positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too.
Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on,
and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would
probably just have to be written off as a loss.

Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station.

True.

Tell us about yours, Brian.

Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they
are on.

Whoa....poignant.

Newer equipment would be
more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue
to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment
gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would
possibly not be convertible

People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever
held a position of "authority" in MARS?

Just write the letter and find out, Brian.

Ooops...I forgot...You're a coward...Never mind.

Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most
all of the digital equipment up to date of change.

Knock yourself out.

As opposed to YOU walking around that way?

Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single
antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general
purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one
that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas
could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not
accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the
major HF bands will not be harmonically related.

Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related.

Not if the passband you want to operate on falls within the other
desired band. In most cases you still need a tuner for bands other
than the ones the antenna is cut for.

All in all, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Congrats. You've just made "Full" member.

As opposed to you who is just full of it...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more
positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too.
Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on,
and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would
probably just have to be written off as a loss.

Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station.

True.

Tell us about yours, Brian.

Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they
are on.

Whoa....poignant.

Newer equipment would be
more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue
to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment
gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would
possibly not be convertible

People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever
held a position of "authority" in MARS?

Just write the letter and find out, Brian.

Ooops...I forgot...You're a coward...Never mind.

Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most
all of the digital equipment up to date of change.

Knock yourself out.

As opposed to YOU walking around that way?

Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single
antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general
purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one
that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas
could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not
accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the
major HF bands will not be harmonically related.

Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related.

Not if the passband you want to operate on falls within the other
desired band. In most cases you still need a tuner for bands other
than the ones the antenna is cut for.

All in all, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Congrats. You've just made "Full" member.

As opposed to you who is just full of it...?!?!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

Oh, the irony, no-documentation Nursie.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!