|
I am betting just the opposite, and I bet the code reader can copy at a
speed long after the human reader is all done... one advantage, in microseconds the code reader can guess at the likelihood of what character the dot/dash sequence is in logical relation to forward and reverse characters (whenever there is a slight doubt)... the human reader would just be sitting there losing characters... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... actually, the only thing I have found that I can't allow for is someone's sloppy key (you must decide what range of microseconds is a dit, and what is the dah-- I have been kicking around the idea of a piece of code to "sample" the senders "style" and automatically adjust--but that is for tomorrow--and would be great if the code could automatically duplicate his "sloppy style" and feed it back to him grin) but then--sloppy key is no easier to copy with ear then by reader... John Depends on how you define easier. The ear can copy code so sloppy that no computer/soundcard/software would ever decipher it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... I don't think there is a ham alive which can beat my keyboard, hooked to a "electronic key" and sending morse, nor my sound card doubling as a "code reader" and producing text on screen from cw... You mean to tell me people actually use "real keys" still--gawd, I thought all those sk tongue-in-cheek Warmest regards, John When conditions are poor, even some one as poor at morse code as I am can beat a "code reader" sound card/computer. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... I am betting just the opposite, and I bet the code reader can copy at a speed long after the human reader is all done... Speed is a different issue than sloppy sending. one advantage, in microseconds the code reader can guess at the likelihood of what character the dot/dash sequence is in logical relation to forward and reverse characters (whenever there is a slight doubt)... the human reader would just be sitting there losing characters... No the human brain does the same type of "fill" once they get past the point of having to copy every single letter manually. Even if they do have to copy manually as I do, it's easy to fill in the missing letters most of the time. Of course you have to train yourself not to dwell on what was missed, a common beginner problem. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
.... so, we can throw away the scientific calculators and go back to
slide rules--I think not... a code reader is that kind of difference... of course, I am the type of guy would wouldn't go back to regen receivers either... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... I am betting just the opposite, and I bet the code reader can copy at a speed long after the human reader is all done... Speed is a different issue than sloppy sending. one advantage, in microseconds the code reader can guess at the likelihood of what character the dot/dash sequence is in logical relation to forward and reverse characters (whenever there is a slight doubt)... the human reader would just be sitting there losing characters... No the human brain does the same type of "fill" once they get past the point of having to copy every single letter manually. Even if they do have to copy manually as I do, it's easy to fill in the missing letters most of the time. Of course you have to train yourself not to dwell on what was missed, a common beginner problem. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
The human ear, brain, hand combo does that now.
Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... actually, the only thing I have found that I can't allow for is someone's sloppy key (you must decide what range of microseconds is a dit, and what is the dah-- I have been kicking around the idea of a piece of code to "sample" the senders "style" and automatically adjust--but that is for tomorrow--and would be great if the code could automatically duplicate his "sloppy style" and feed it back to him grin) but then--sloppy key is no easier to copy with ear then by reader... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... I don't think there is a ham alive which can beat my keyboard, hooked to a "electronic key" and sending morse, nor my sound card doubling as a "code reader" and producing text on screen from cw... You mean to tell me people actually use "real keys" still--gawd, I thought all those sk tongue-in-cheek Warmest regards, John When conditions are poor, even some one as poor at morse code as I am can beat a "code reader" sound card/computer. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
I am not talking about illegals, or minorities. At least try to stay on
subject. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... let's reset back to reality, there are fewer hams in the world--than illegal aliens in the state of california (and about 41 million illegals in the nation)... a true minority... the number of new keys are simply not worth mentioning in comparison... hams must be THE smallest minority wanting special privileges for a damn hobby! ... if you haven't thought of it like that before--think of it now--not all are fools... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... Oh really? Then how do we explain the young contesters out there? Or the many QSOs I have with hams on CW in their 20s and 30s? And I don't operate at 5wpm. Neither do they...think maybe they picked up some speed, eh? Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Morse is a ghost language spoken by old men when they do their rants and name their illnesses--much to the dismay of the vital and youthful hams... The new 5 WPM test for all classes will guarantee you will NOT be speaking morse to any young men--they will pass the 5 WPM to get the extra license... then you will never see them again--except on phone and modem... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... Bet the pilots among them know Morse. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Well, all the astronauts are no code techs... guess those no-code'ers are in good and technical company... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jun 8, 5:50 pm You would think the ARRL high priest would not abandon these guys--times must be tough... http://www.arrl.org/news/stori?es/2004/05/22/1/?nc=1 John -- Watching the cutting edge of yesterday replay--in virtual reality, right before my eyes--in real time! Thirty year old technology--wasn't it amazing? Tsk. It took the League long enough to see the "duhhhh..." :-) They've had adequate numbers all along. They've been seeing only what they want to believe. As of the end of 2004 the League had only 140 thousand members. That's about 20 percent of all U.S. amateur licensees. [from QST advertising webpage] Haynie has said that a "survey" showed fully 1 in 5 hams actually got on the air? Oh, my, a remarkable coincidence in the percentage of League membership. :-) [we now pause to have all loyal league believers vent their rage against those who defile 'their' organization...] |
My gawd man, have you been asleep... I heard about that happening
before--think it was a chap named "Rip Van Winkle" it happened to... .... Naa, we got rovers on mars and can interface just about anything to anything these days... they invented the computer too... only real limitation is the operators mind... indeed, computers now design components/hardware--just can assemble teams of techs large enough to compete with 'em these days... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... The human ear, brain, hand combo does that now. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... actually, the only thing I have found that I can't allow for is someone's sloppy key (you must decide what range of microseconds is a dit, and what is the dah-- I have been kicking around the idea of a piece of code to "sample" the senders "style" and automatically adjust--but that is for tomorrow--and would be great if the code could automatically duplicate his "sloppy style" and feed it back to him grin) but then--sloppy key is no easier to copy with ear then by reader... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... I don't think there is a ham alive which can beat my keyboard, hooked to a "electronic key" and sending morse, nor my sound card doubling as a "code reader" and producing text on screen from cw... You mean to tell me people actually use "real keys" still--gawd, I thought all those sk tongue-in-cheek Warmest regards, John When conditions are poor, even some one as poor at morse code as I am can beat a "code reader" sound card/computer. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
.... no, you are talking about a minority which has no comparison...
hams... but next closest minority is illegal aliens... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... I am not talking about illegals, or minorities. At least try to stay on subject. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... let's reset back to reality, there are fewer hams in the world--than illegal aliens in the state of california (and about 41 million illegals in the nation)... a true minority... the number of new keys are simply not worth mentioning in comparison... hams must be THE smallest minority wanting special privileges for a damn hobby! ... if you haven't thought of it like that before--think of it now--not all are fools... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... Oh really? Then how do we explain the young contesters out there? Or the many QSOs I have with hams on CW in their 20s and 30s? And I don't operate at 5wpm. Neither do they...think maybe they picked up some speed, eh? Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Morse is a ghost language spoken by old men when they do their rants and name their illnesses--much to the dismay of the vital and youthful hams... The new 5 WPM test for all classes will guarantee you will NOT be speaking morse to any young men--they will pass the 5 WPM to get the extra license... then you will never see them again--except on phone and modem... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... Bet the pilots among them know Morse. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Well, all the astronauts are no code techs... guess those no-code'ers are in good and technical company... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jun 8, 5:50 pm You would think the ARRL high priest would not abandon these guys--times must be tough... http://www.arrl.org/news/stori?es/2004/05/22/1/?nc=1 John -- Watching the cutting edge of yesterday replay--in virtual reality, right before my eyes--in real time! Thirty year old technology--wasn't it amazing? Tsk. It took the League long enough to see the "duhhhh..." :-) They've had adequate numbers all along. They've been seeing only what they want to believe. As of the end of 2004 the League had only 140 thousand members. That's about 20 percent of all U.S. amateur licensees. [from QST advertising webpage] Haynie has said that a "survey" showed fully 1 in 5 hams actually got on the air? Oh, my, a remarkable coincidence in the percentage of League membership. :-) [we now pause to have all loyal league believers vent their rage against those who defile 'their' organization...] |
.... I have seen this symptom before--always comes from taking yourself
and your hobby MUCH too seriously... most recommend "get a life" when they see individuals struck with this illness... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... I am not talking about illegals, or minorities. At least try to stay on subject. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... let's reset back to reality, there are fewer hams in the world--than illegal aliens in the state of california (and about 41 million illegals in the nation)... a true minority... the number of new keys are simply not worth mentioning in comparison... hams must be THE smallest minority wanting special privileges for a damn hobby! ... if you haven't thought of it like that before--think of it now--not all are fools... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ink.net... Oh really? Then how do we explain the young contesters out there? Or the many QSOs I have with hams on CW in their 20s and 30s? And I don't operate at 5wpm. Neither do they...think maybe they picked up some speed, eh? Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Morse is a ghost language spoken by old men when they do their rants and name their illnesses--much to the dismay of the vital and youthful hams... The new 5 WPM test for all classes will guarantee you will NOT be speaking morse to any young men--they will pass the 5 WPM to get the extra license... then you will never see them again--except on phone and modem... John "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... Bet the pilots among them know Morse. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Well, all the astronauts are no code techs... guess those no-code'ers are in good and technical company... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jun 8, 5:50 pm You would think the ARRL high priest would not abandon these guys--times must be tough... http://www.arrl.org/news/stori?es/2004/05/22/1/?nc=1 John -- Watching the cutting edge of yesterday replay--in virtual reality, right before my eyes--in real time! Thirty year old technology--wasn't it amazing? Tsk. It took the League long enough to see the "duhhhh..." :-) They've had adequate numbers all along. They've been seeing only what they want to believe. As of the end of 2004 the League had only 140 thousand members. That's about 20 percent of all U.S. amateur licensees. [from QST advertising webpage] Haynie has said that a "survey" showed fully 1 in 5 hams actually got on the air? Oh, my, a remarkable coincidence in the percentage of League membership. :-) [we now pause to have all loyal league believers vent their rage against those who defile 'their' organization...] |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... ... so, we can throw away the scientific calculators and go back to slide rules--I think not... a code reader is that kind of difference... of course, I am the type of guy would wouldn't go back to regen receivers either... John Your comparison falls down. It is more like retaining the ability to do mathematics with pencil and paper occasionally. All the code readers I've seen fail except under ideal conditions (i.e. strong signal, near perfect fist, little static, little fading). Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
no... the old hams have become as out dated as regen receivers... they
may think no ones notices... we do... it is ok to fool others, but when you only end up being a fool from your efforts you have failed to stop listening to others telling you about it... you now go on to tell everyone else "how it is"--failing to comprehend that everyone has already stopped listening... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... so, we can throw away the scientific calculators and go back to slide rules--I think not... a code reader is that kind of difference... of course, I am the type of guy would wouldn't go back to regen receivers either... John Your comparison falls down. It is more like retaining the ability to do mathematics with pencil and paper occasionally. All the code readers I've seen fail except under ideal conditions (i.e. strong signal, near perfect fist, little static, little fading). Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
.... still the problem is denied, still the problem goes on--still the
Alzheimer's victims are as in denial, puzzled and generally incompetent at begin a help... .... so the hobby goes on led by ancient old men babbling war cries constructed of ill formed logic... .... meantime, status quo remains level... some here will die never realizing there is a problem--but then--we knew that from the start... John "John Smith" wrote in message ... You would think the ARRL high priest would not abandon these guys--times must be tough... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/05/22/1/?nc=1 John -- Watching the cutting edge of yesterday replay--in virtual reality, right before my eyes--in real time! Thirty year old technology--wasn't it amazing? |
John Smith wrote:
I don't think there is a ham alive which can beat my keyboard, hooked to a "electronic key" and sending morse, nor my sound card doubling as a "code reader" and producing text on screen from cw... I can beat that setup under certain conditions. The reverse is also true. All depends on the situation. For example, can that setup function with the operator's eyes shut? But that's really not the point. Using a keyboard and code reader means you're doing a form of RTTY that happens to use OOK Morse instead of, say, ASCII FSK as the encoding method. If that's fun for you, enjoy! But it's not the real issue. You mean to tell me people actually use "real keys" still-- Oh yes. I have a choice of four Vibroplexes, and a J-37 straight key. Wonderful instruments. gawd, I thought all those sk tongue-in-cheek I'm younger than you, John. Some analogies: - Someone in fair physical condition can beat the fastest marathon runners in history - if the someone uses a bicycle. That doesn't make the someone a marathoner. - Someone else riding a Harley can win the Tour de France easily. That doesn't entitle them to the yellow shirt. - There are plenty of boats that can win the America's Cup against all challengers - but they're not allowed to compete, because those boats have engines instead of sails. Get the idea? |
N2EY:
.... said, "I'm younger than you, John." Hey man, calm down!!! If you start threatening me--I may have to agree with you!!!! tongue-in-cheek-grin Warmest regards, John wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: I don't think there is a ham alive which can beat my keyboard, hooked to a "electronic key" and sending morse, nor my sound card doubling as a "code reader" and producing text on screen from cw... I can beat that setup under certain conditions. The reverse is also true. All depends on the situation. For example, can that setup function with the operator's eyes shut? But that's really not the point. Using a keyboard and code reader means you're doing a form of RTTY that happens to use OOK Morse instead of, say, ASCII FSK as the encoding method. If that's fun for you, enjoy! But it's not the real issue. You mean to tell me people actually use "real keys" still-- Oh yes. I have a choice of four Vibroplexes, and a J-37 straight key. Wonderful instruments. gawd, I thought all those sk tongue-in-cheek I'm younger than you, John. Some analogies: - Someone in fair physical condition can beat the fastest marathon runners in history - if the someone uses a bicycle. That doesn't make the someone a marathoner. - Someone else riding a Harley can win the Tour de France easily. That doesn't entitle them to the yellow shirt. - There are plenty of boats that can win the America's Cup against all challengers - but they're not allowed to compete, because those boats have engines instead of sails. Get the idea? |
John Smith wrote: ... still the problem is denied, still the problem goes on--still the Alzheimer's victims are as in denial, puzzled and generally incompetent at begin a help... ... so the hobby goes on led by ancient old men babbling war cries constructed of ill formed logic... ... meantime, status quo remains level... some here will die never realizing there is a problem--but then--we knew that from the start... John Lucky for them they'll go to St Hiram's Gate all hero's. |
Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... I am betting just the opposite, and I bet the code reader can copy at a speed long after the human reader is all done... Speed is a different issue than sloppy sending. I recall an oldster on here bragging that he could send code so badly that a No-Code Technician with a code reader couldn't copy it. All of the other oldsters on here covered for him by claiming "banana-boat swings" and other excuses for having a "unique" and incorrect fist. That and the Farnsworth debacle led to the discovery that the FCC has absolutely no working definition of Morse Code, yet the FCC denies people access to hobby radio every day based upon an exam for something which they no longer have a definition for. |
.... people who play a musical instrument well, I can appreciate and have
a liking for... those with a code key in their hand I attempt to avoid... .... thank gawd they can't force us to suffer it... frankly, I don't know of many places where they can practice it in public... other citizens would get angry and ask 'em to leave... it would kinda be like masturbating in public, everyone knows you do it, just don't do it in front of them!!! tongue-in-cheek John "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... I am betting just the opposite, and I bet the code reader can copy at a speed long after the human reader is all done... Speed is a different issue than sloppy sending. I recall an oldster on here bragging that he could send code so badly that a No-Code Technician with a code reader couldn't copy it. All of the other oldsters on here covered for him by claiming "banana-boat swings" and other excuses for having a "unique" and incorrect fist. That and the Farnsworth debacle led to the discovery that the FCC has absolutely no working definition of Morse Code, yet the FCC denies people access to hobby radio every day based upon an exam for something which they no longer have a definition for. |
I know God can enjoy a good glass of wine--his son shared it with other
men... .... I can imagine God could enjoy a good Cuban cigar.... .... if you take your key to heaven, he just might toss ya out on yer bum!!! grin John "bb" wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... still the problem is denied, still the problem goes on--still the Alzheimer's victims are as in denial, puzzled and generally incompetent at begin a help... ... so the hobby goes on led by ancient old men babbling war cries constructed of ill formed logic... ... meantime, status quo remains level... some here will die never realizing there is a problem--but then--we knew that from the start... John Lucky for them they'll go to St Hiram's Gate all hero's. |
John Smith wrote: I know God can enjoy a good glass of wine--his son shared it with other men... Catholics know that, but many of the newer Christian faiths tend to deny that. ... I can imagine God could enjoy a good Cuban cigar.... Never considered it. ... if you take your key to heaven, he just might toss ya out on yer bum!!! grin John Not even a Vibroplex or a Brown Bros.? |
bb:
Pray tell, you mean the "newer christians" can't read--so remain ignorant to the passages which speak of wine and caution of consuming too much? But, do encourage one to partake in a moderate fashion? Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able to help these people... Warmest regards, John "bb" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: I know God can enjoy a good glass of wine--his son shared it with other men... Catholics know that, but many of the newer Christian faiths tend to deny that. ... I can imagine God could enjoy a good Cuban cigar.... Never considered it. ... if you take your key to heaven, he just might toss ya out on yer bum!!! grin John Not even a Vibroplex or a Brown Bros.? |
John Smith wrote:
Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able to help these people... But they, whoever 'they' are, have decided that such deviancy is 'OK' now. |
John Smith wrote:
bb: Pray tell, you mean the "newer christians" can't read--so remain ignorant to the passages which speak of wine and caution of consuming too much? But, do encourage one to partake in a moderate fashion? Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? The "New Christians" also tore out the Sermon on the Mount pages. Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able to help these people... What was once insane is now required. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
I think "they" attempt to convince us that we are the minority--however, I think only a small percentage of the population has somehow gained political and authority (police, etc.) control--how this has been done is nothing short of amazing... And, while I think those who would attack or injure these people are as sick, or even sicker than the ones doing this... A simple remark in public, such as, "I think gays suffer a form of mental illness which a kind society would seek to offer help with.", will provoke quite a large number of people into wishing they could kill you!!! I stand in awe at the forces able to produce this phenomenon... Warmest regards, John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: bb: Pray tell, you mean the "newer christians" can't read--so remain ignorant to the passages which speak of wine and caution of consuming too much? But, do encourage one to partake in a moderate fashion? Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? The "New Christians" also tore out the Sermon on the Mount pages. Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able to help these people... What was once insane is now required. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL) but yet you are fully in your rights to remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned category only? Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code... or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more "logical" to me then... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? |
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a "religion" (such as the ARRL) ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect. but yet you are fully in your rights to remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned category only? Has nothing to do with me. The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations by the Bible. I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other foods labeled unclean). IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament" abominations to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones. We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*. Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code... or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more "logical" to me then... Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans. -- Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon. -- wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? |
N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect." .... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of ethical and moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by? If so, they have many of the traits of a religion... and many "ARRL zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious zealots"... has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a "religion" (such as the ARRL) ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect. but yet you are fully in your rights to remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned category only? Has nothing to do with me. The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations by the Bible. I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other foods labeled unclean). IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament" abominations to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones. We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*. Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code... or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more "logical" to me then... Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans. -- Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon. -- wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY wrote: "ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect." ... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of ethical and moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by? There's more to a religion than that. If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions": - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. If so, they have many of the traits of a religion... So do all of the organizations listed above. and many "ARRL zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious zealots"... That claim is incorrect. has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining... IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license requirements, they really aren't interested. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a "religion" (such as the ARRL) ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect. but yet you are fully in your rights to remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned category only? Has nothing to do with me. The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations by the Bible. I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other foods labeled unclean). IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament" abominations to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones. We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*. Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code... or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more "logical" to me then... Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans. -- Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon. -- wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? |
N2Ey:
I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2EY wrote: "ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect." ... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of ethical and moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by? There's more to a religion than that. If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions": - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. If so, they have many of the traits of a religion... So do all of the organizations listed above. and many "ARRL zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious zealots"... That claim is incorrect. has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining... IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license requirements, they really aren't interested. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a "religion" (such as the ARRL) ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect. but yet you are fully in your rights to remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned category only? Has nothing to do with me. The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations by the Bible. I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other foods labeled unclean). IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament" abominations to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones. We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*. Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code... or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more "logical" to me then... Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans. -- Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon. -- wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? |
John Smith wrote:
N2Ey: I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin Then the following are all cults, too: - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. |
I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone
would make classification as a cult difficult... However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to such classification... rather bizarre really--when at its core is technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to new discoveries, methods, devices, etc... "new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of months in this field... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2Ey: I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin Then the following are all cults, too: - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. |
John Smith wrote:
I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone would make classification as a cult difficult... Try selling the NRA on the idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Try selling NCI on the idea that *some* code testing is OK. However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to such classification... The ARRL is as "open to change" (if not more so) as any of the organizations named. Is devotion to principles a bad thing? Or are principles, traditions, and standards to be tossed aside merely because they're old? rather bizarre really--when at its core is technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to new discoveries, methods, devices, etc... Such as? The ARRL has been pushing for a revision of the rules to classify signals by bandwidth rather than content, and to free up old technical limitations. What other group has put forth such a proposal? While I don't agree with all the proposed revisions, the general concept is a valid one. Why should an FSK signal of 900 Hz bandwidth be permitted on a frequency because it's RTTY, but an FSK signal of 500 Hz bandwidth be prohibited from the same frequency because it's digitized voice? US amateur radio is and has long been wide open for new discoveries, methods, devices, etc.. Particularly on VHF/UHF, where there's lots of bandwidth. You cannot blame the license requirements for lack of innovation, because the requirements for full VHF/UHF privileges have included no code test and only a minimal written test for 14+ years. The real "cult" or "religion" to watch for is the mindset that all change is good, new is better than old, ending is better than mending, and similar marketing buzzphrases. That mindset is geared to three goals: - selling more product, regardless of whether it's really better - attracting investment capital - destroying the existing structure without an adequate replacement The boom-dot-bust mess of 2000 proves the game doesn't last forever. "new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of months in this field... Which field? Radio broadcasting in the USA uses AM (developed more than a century ago) and FM stereo multiplex (developed a half century ago). Satellite radio may cut into their market but it's a long way from replacing standard broadcasting. TV broadcasting is only now beginning the widespread change to HDTV, after a half-century of NTSC. In any technology, there is usually rapid progress when the technology is new, then as the technology matures, the changes become more evolutionary than revolutionary. Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 tomorrow. Will we see a techno- revolution in ham radio? Not likely - it didn't happen after the Tech lost its code test. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2Ey: I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin Then the following are all cults, too: - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. |
John Smith wrote:
Michael: It is weird, just to think it is the only book (well, there are a couple of more, most mention a "God") which stands between a lot more crime and immense degradation of society and not... ... as even I can see if there is no creator to answer to--then I am free to murder anyone possessing great wealth and property and take it for myself... ... of course I still wouldn't do that--but just because I want to "be a nice guy." And, having studied human nature, I am afraid how long that alone could stop me... perhaps till there was ten million dollars on the table and I thought I could get away with it? evil-grin It's called "civilization", John. Also "mutual benefit". You don't need a Book to figure out that stealing is wrong, all you need is common sense. Theft does not create anything - only productive work does. A farmer does not need robbing bandits in order to live. But the bandits need the farmer - otherwise there's nothing for them to steal. A society composed solely of farmers and other producers can exist. A society composed solely of thieves cannot exist, because there would be nothing to steal, and they'd all starve. I think drug dealers, extortionists, bank robbers, serial killers, rapists, child molesters, etc. may have already figured this out though... Nothing new about those kinds of folks - they have existed throughout history. The smart ones figure out how to do their thing without what they are doing becoming too apparent. too bad really... looking back, the world did seem a quite a bit safer when they were still living in "ignorance"... When was that? When people who didn't believe a certain way about a certain Book were tortured and killed for their beliefs? When wars were fought over interpretations of stories in a Book? When "believers" argued that it was morally acceptable for some people to literally own other people as property? When more than half the population was rendered legally inferior because of gender? (lots more examples...) IMHO, more wars, destruction, death and mayhem have been created by organized religious/ideological zealotry than any atheistic thief or tyrant could imagine. There's a limit to what a bank robber will do to rob a bank, because if the bank robber is killed or caught, his actions are obviously pointless because he doesn't get the reward (money). But there's no limit to what some religious zealots will do, because even if they are killed or caught, they think they will get the post-death reward, and there's no way to know if that's true or not. "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Weird, eh? The OT has more contradictory stuff in it than just about anything I've ever read. Only if you take it to be *literally* true. Take Genesis, for example. The two creation stories contradict each other. I think that's intentional - it tells us *not* to take the stories literally. They're about ideas, rather than history. The idea that the descendants of Adam and Eve should be punished for a crime they didn't commit doesn't make any sense if you view it as a legal thing, like locking up someone today because her Great Great Granddad robbed a bank. But if you look at it from the standpoint that something people do today (like pollution) will impact many future generations, it's a clear warning to think beyond the moment. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Kreepy and Kinky is all I can say on the matter. Yuck! Yep. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? I believe that the New Testament would be a good starting place. A lot less of the thou shalts and shalt nots. Yet the business about homosexuality being an abomination is straight out of the OT. Except for the Sermon on the Mount, which is a number of direct commands, most of which are routinely ignored by those who consider themselves the most righteous! What commands? The Sermon doesn't say "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not", does it? Rather He explains how things work - the rewards for those who follow His example. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: Mike Coslo on Sun 12 Jun 2005 21:28
John Smith wrote: bb: Pray tell, you mean the "newer christians" can't read--so remain ignorant to the passages which speak of wine and caution of consuming too much? But, do encourage one to partake in a moderate fashion? Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? The "New Christians" also tore out the Sermon on the Mount pages. There is ONLY the Sermon on the Antenna Mount. The Reverend has extolled that. Code is holy, code is righteous, thou shalt have a code test for all privileges below 30 MHz. Yea, verily, thou shalt beep lest ye lose the holy spirit of ham. Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able to help these people... What was once insane is now required. The first amateur license test did not require code testing. Then the insanity began. It is only partly cured today. Consider yourself a partly-cured ham. |
N2Ey:
Oh my gawd. Just that simple huh? Well, my gawd man, go explain that to the thieves, rapists, child molesters, and murders--we need that cure now! Perhaps you can set up a clinic where you can demonstrate how well your theories will work... John wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: Michael: It is weird, just to think it is the only book (well, there are a couple of more, most mention a "God") which stands between a lot more crime and immense degradation of society and not... ... as even I can see if there is no creator to answer to--then I am free to murder anyone possessing great wealth and property and take it for myself... ... of course I still wouldn't do that--but just because I want to "be a nice guy." And, having studied human nature, I am afraid how long that alone could stop me... perhaps till there was ten million dollars on the table and I thought I could get away with it? evil-grin It's called "civilization", John. Also "mutual benefit". You don't need a Book to figure out that stealing is wrong, all you need is common sense. Theft does not create anything - only productive work does. A farmer does not need robbing bandits in order to live. But the bandits need the farmer - otherwise there's nothing for them to steal. A society composed solely of farmers and other producers can exist. A society composed solely of thieves cannot exist, because there would be nothing to steal, and they'd all starve. I think drug dealers, extortionists, bank robbers, serial killers, rapists, child molesters, etc. may have already figured this out though... Nothing new about those kinds of folks - they have existed throughout history. The smart ones figure out how to do their thing without what they are doing becoming too apparent. too bad really... looking back, the world did seem a quite a bit safer when they were still living in "ignorance"... When was that? When people who didn't believe a certain way about a certain Book were tortured and killed for their beliefs? When wars were fought over interpretations of stories in a Book? When "believers" argued that it was morally acceptable for some people to literally own other people as property? When more than half the population was rendered legally inferior because of gender? (lots more examples...) IMHO, more wars, destruction, death and mayhem have been created by organized religious/ideological zealotry than any atheistic thief or tyrant could imagine. There's a limit to what a bank robber will do to rob a bank, because if the bank robber is killed or caught, his actions are obviously pointless because he doesn't get the reward (money). But there's no limit to what some religious zealots will do, because even if they are killed or caught, they think they will get the post-death reward, and there's no way to know if that's true or not. "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: John Smith wrote: bb: Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the same way gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an abomination? Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John? Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally true. Weird, eh? The OT has more contradictory stuff in it than just about anything I've ever read. Only if you take it to be *literally* true. Take Genesis, for example. The two creation stories contradict each other. I think that's intentional - it tells us *not* to take the stories literally. They're about ideas, rather than history. The idea that the descendants of Adam and Eve should be punished for a crime they didn't commit doesn't make any sense if you view it as a legal thing, like locking up someone today because her Great Great Granddad robbed a bank. But if you look at it from the standpoint that something people do today (like pollution) will impact many future generations, it's a clear warning to think beyond the moment. Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions towards his daughters and their actions towards him. Kreepy and Kinky is all I can say on the matter. Yuck! Yep. Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork, or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits. Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid? I believe that the New Testament would be a good starting place. A lot less of the thou shalts and shalt nots. Yet the business about homosexuality being an abomination is straight out of the OT. Except for the Sermon on the Mount, which is a number of direct commands, most of which are routinely ignored by those who consider themselves the most righteous! What commands? The Sermon doesn't say "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not", does it? Rather He explains how things work - the rewards for those who follow His example. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
Well, if you are going to use cw, a code test should be administered, if not, none need be given... I certainly do not use cw... and no young guys I have helped into the hobby are going to be using it... in the future cw will go silent... that is inevitable... John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone would make classification as a cult difficult... Try selling the NRA on the idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Try selling NCI on the idea that *some* code testing is OK. However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to such classification... The ARRL is as "open to change" (if not more so) as any of the organizations named. Is devotion to principles a bad thing? Or are principles, traditions, and standards to be tossed aside merely because they're old? rather bizarre really--when at its core is technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to new discoveries, methods, devices, etc... Such as? The ARRL has been pushing for a revision of the rules to classify signals by bandwidth rather than content, and to free up old technical limitations. What other group has put forth such a proposal? While I don't agree with all the proposed revisions, the general concept is a valid one. Why should an FSK signal of 900 Hz bandwidth be permitted on a frequency because it's RTTY, but an FSK signal of 500 Hz bandwidth be prohibited from the same frequency because it's digitized voice? US amateur radio is and has long been wide open for new discoveries, methods, devices, etc.. Particularly on VHF/UHF, where there's lots of bandwidth. You cannot blame the license requirements for lack of innovation, because the requirements for full VHF/UHF privileges have included no code test and only a minimal written test for 14+ years. The real "cult" or "religion" to watch for is the mindset that all change is good, new is better than old, ending is better than mending, and similar marketing buzzphrases. That mindset is geared to three goals: - selling more product, regardless of whether it's really better - attracting investment capital - destroying the existing structure without an adequate replacement The boom-dot-bust mess of 2000 proves the game doesn't last forever. "new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of months in this field... Which field? Radio broadcasting in the USA uses AM (developed more than a century ago) and FM stereo multiplex (developed a half century ago). Satellite radio may cut into their market but it's a long way from replacing standard broadcasting. TV broadcasting is only now beginning the widespread change to HDTV, after a half-century of NTSC. In any technology, there is usually rapid progress when the technology is new, then as the technology matures, the changes become more evolutionary than revolutionary. Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 tomorrow. Will we see a techno- revolution in ham radio? Not likely - it didn't happen after the Tech lost its code test. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2Ey: I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin Then the following are all cults, too: - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY: Well, if you are going to use cw, a code test should be administered, if not, none need be given... Apply that same argument to ssb...and AM...and FSK...and VHF/UHF. Apply it to the VE rules, band edges, and almost any other regulations. If your argument is valid for the use of code, then it's valid for the use of almost everything else in amateur radio. I certainly do not use cw... So? I certainly do not use much of what I had to learn to get my license. But I learned it just the same. Was that wrong? and no young guys I have helped into the hobby are going to be using it... What if they do? What if they discover, on their own, how much fun it is, despite your efforts otherwise? in the future cw will go silent... that is inevitable... In the future all modes will go silent. It seems to me, John, that you do not answer questions nor engage in dialogue, but simply repeat the same basic mantras. Some could call that "cult-like behaviour". Is there a reason for your top-posting and non-answers? Just curious wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone would make classification as a cult difficult... Try selling the NRA on the idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Try selling NCI on the idea that *some* code testing is OK. However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to such classification... The ARRL is as "open to change" (if not more so) as any of the organizations named. Is devotion to principles a bad thing? Or are principles, traditions, and standards to be tossed aside merely because they're old? rather bizarre really--when at its core is technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to new discoveries, methods, devices, etc... Such as? The ARRL has been pushing for a revision of the rules to classify signals by bandwidth rather than content, and to free up old technical limitations. What other group has put forth such a proposal? While I don't agree with all the proposed revisions, the general concept is a valid one. Why should an FSK signal of 900 Hz bandwidth be permitted on a frequency because it's RTTY, but an FSK signal of 500 Hz bandwidth be prohibited from the same frequency because it's digitized voice? US amateur radio is and has long been wide open for new discoveries, methods, devices, etc.. Particularly on VHF/UHF, where there's lots of bandwidth. You cannot blame the license requirements for lack of innovation, because the requirements for full VHF/UHF privileges have included no code test and only a minimal written test for 14+ years. The real "cult" or "religion" to watch for is the mindset that all change is good, new is better than old, ending is better than mending, and similar marketing buzzphrases. That mindset is geared to three goals: - selling more product, regardless of whether it's really better - attracting investment capital - destroying the existing structure without an adequate replacement The boom-dot-bust mess of 2000 proves the game doesn't last forever. "new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of months in this field... Which field? Radio broadcasting in the USA uses AM (developed more than a century ago) and FM stereo multiplex (developed a half century ago). Satellite radio may cut into their market but it's a long way from replacing standard broadcasting. TV broadcasting is only now beginning the widespread change to HDTV, after a half-century of NTSC. In any technology, there is usually rapid progress when the technology is new, then as the technology matures, the changes become more evolutionary than revolutionary. Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 tomorrow. Will we see a techno- revolution in ham radio? Not likely - it didn't happen after the Tech lost its code test. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2Ey: I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin Then the following are all cults, too: - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. |
N2EY:
I have asked the young men why they have no interest in getting a ham license, it is because of the limitations placed on the no code license--and the fact they are not interested in learning code to chat with someone DX--a task which can be accomplished much easier and reliably over the net with instant messaging, IRC chat, etc... that is REAL. THAT is dropping the numbers of hams and putting bands in danger of being lost... that is holding our numbers at such low levels the FCC begins to find us more a bother than anything else... Now we are just debating if and how we are going to save amateur radio from the men who would require a code requirement onto the hobbies death... You are right, I repeat the mantra like a prayer... John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Well, if you are going to use cw, a code test should be administered, if not, none need be given... Apply that same argument to ssb...and AM...and FSK...and VHF/UHF. Apply it to the VE rules, band edges, and almost any other regulations. If your argument is valid for the use of code, then it's valid for the use of almost everything else in amateur radio. I certainly do not use cw... So? I certainly do not use much of what I had to learn to get my license. But I learned it just the same. Was that wrong? and no young guys I have helped into the hobby are going to be using it... What if they do? What if they discover, on their own, how much fun it is, despite your efforts otherwise? in the future cw will go silent... that is inevitable... In the future all modes will go silent. It seems to me, John, that you do not answer questions nor engage in dialogue, but simply repeat the same basic mantras. Some could call that "cult-like behaviour". Is there a reason for your top-posting and non-answers? Just curious wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone would make classification as a cult difficult... Try selling the NRA on the idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Try selling NCI on the idea that *some* code testing is OK. However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to such classification... The ARRL is as "open to change" (if not more so) as any of the organizations named. Is devotion to principles a bad thing? Or are principles, traditions, and standards to be tossed aside merely because they're old? rather bizarre really--when at its core is technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to new discoveries, methods, devices, etc... Such as? The ARRL has been pushing for a revision of the rules to classify signals by bandwidth rather than content, and to free up old technical limitations. What other group has put forth such a proposal? While I don't agree with all the proposed revisions, the general concept is a valid one. Why should an FSK signal of 900 Hz bandwidth be permitted on a frequency because it's RTTY, but an FSK signal of 500 Hz bandwidth be prohibited from the same frequency because it's digitized voice? US amateur radio is and has long been wide open for new discoveries, methods, devices, etc.. Particularly on VHF/UHF, where there's lots of bandwidth. You cannot blame the license requirements for lack of innovation, because the requirements for full VHF/UHF privileges have included no code test and only a minimal written test for 14+ years. The real "cult" or "religion" to watch for is the mindset that all change is good, new is better than old, ending is better than mending, and similar marketing buzzphrases. That mindset is geared to three goals: - selling more product, regardless of whether it's really better - attracting investment capital - destroying the existing structure without an adequate replacement The boom-dot-bust mess of 2000 proves the game doesn't last forever. "new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of months in this field... Which field? Radio broadcasting in the USA uses AM (developed more than a century ago) and FM stereo multiplex (developed a half century ago). Satellite radio may cut into their market but it's a long way from replacing standard broadcasting. TV broadcasting is only now beginning the widespread change to HDTV, after a half-century of NTSC. In any technology, there is usually rapid progress when the technology is new, then as the technology matures, the changes become more evolutionary than revolutionary. Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 tomorrow. Will we see a techno- revolution in ham radio? Not likely - it didn't happen after the Tech lost its code test. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2Ey: I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion... Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin Then the following are all cults, too: - Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations - US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - AMA, ANA, and similar organizations - IEEE and similar organizations - No-Code International and similar organizations And many others. |
|
John Smith wrote: ... people who play a musical instrument well, I can appreciate and have a liking for... those with a code key in their hand I attempt to avoid... ... thank gawd they can't force us to suffer it... frankly, I don't know of many places where they can practice it in public... other citizens would get angry and ask 'em to leave... it would kinda be like masturbating in public, everyone knows you do it, just don't do it in front of them!!! tongue-in-cheek John A public nuisance. Hi! ;^) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com