| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#71
June 14th 05, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#72
June 14th 05, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 Try selling the NRA on the idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed.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. |
|
#73
June 14th 05, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#74
June 14th 05, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#75
June 14th 05, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#76
June 14th 05, 07:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#77
June 14th 05, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#78
June 15th 05, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#79
June 15th 05, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#80
June 15th 05, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! ;^) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
