K4YZ wrote:


Jayson Davis wrote:


As soon as cw falls, I see the most important step being in
"advertising" the fact that cw is no longer a requirement. Spreading
the word and helping others to study and pass the written exam will be
key in getting the numbers we need at that time.


I don't even see that as being a "happening thing", Jayson.
Amateur Radio, just like fishing, or NASCAR, or R/C models, etc etc has
always attracted a certain "crowd".

And a strange line of thought Jayson uses. Kind of like we're supposed
to say:

"Ham Radio - we don't suck now!"



It's not an issue of numbers, it's an issue of why would anyone want to
become an amateur radio operator. Really now, why would you want to do
that? To talk on repeaters? To work some guy on 20 meters? The whole
hobby is passe.

To Jayson:

Then why the heck do you want us to advertise that the Morse test is gone.

I wonder why so many people who hate Ham radio seem to know exactly how
Ham radio is supposed to be?


So's dropping a line in the water and trying to hook a fish, but
millions of folks do it every year...Not because it's the only way to
feed their families, but just for fun.

Anyone can get into chat rooms or exchange e-mail with folks
almost anywhere in the world...but there will still be the thrill of
doing it with "wireless".


If you want to attract the bright intelligent minds, you better be
prepared to challenge them. Challenge them to let them in, challenge
them when they get here. Do you think ax.25 is going to attract people?

To Jayson again: (Sorry Steve, I didn't see the post until now)

Question number 1 - Why do so many people seem to think that the
internet is some kind of Hi-Tech wonderland - and that Amateur Radio
darn well better emulate it?

Side note..... If you think that the Internet is at the cutting
edge.... well, we know that you aren't.

And yes, mentioning AX. 25 is telling me that. Packet radio is FAIAP
not at all about transmission of large amounts of data. It has morphed
into APRS, GPS apps, C and C and other areas which do indeed attract
bright people who want to experiment.

BTW, isn't there a slight contradiction between wanting to attract
large number of people, and wanting to attract the bright and intelligent?

I suspect it might sound snobbish, but it *is* true that 50 percent of
people are below average. Gospel truth!



Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllp....Markie wil chime in here and say I
am "attacking" Lennie, but there's been a no code license for just that
very kind of experimentation for 14 years now, and Lennie and hi ilk
have been more than welcome to jump right in and develop all the new
data protocols they'd like to do.

Yet all they whine about is the code test and that 3% of the
allocations that do require a code test.

Why?

Those type hate Hams. Maybe that isn't gospel truth, but its close enough.


Because all THEY are interested in is playing on HF...If all those
engineering types had any interest in obtaining an Amateur Radio
license for "experimenting" purposes, it would be a done deal.

Yup.

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37

K4YZ wrote:
Jayson Davis wrote:

As soon as cw falls, I see the most important step being in
"advertising" the fact that cw is no longer a requirement. Spreading
the word and helping others to study and pass the written exam will be
key in getting the numbers we need at that time.

I don't even see that as being a "happening thing", Jayson.
Amateur Radio, just like fishing, or NASCAR, or R/C models, etc etc has
always attracted a certain "crowd".

And a strange line of thought Jayson uses. Kind of like we're supposed
to say:

"Ham Radio - we don't suck now!"

That would be a REALISTIC beginning... :-)

Oh, Michael, we've all seen the "crowd" represented by K4YZ. :-)

So, other than the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society)
thinking their sky has fallen, what would YOU really
advertise U.S. amateur radio in its "new beginning" after
WT Docket 05-235 turns into an R&O?

It's not an issue of numbers, it's an issue of why would anyone want to
become an amateur radio operator. Really now, why would you want to do
that? To talk on repeaters? To work some guy on 20 meters? The whole
hobby is passe.

To Jayson:

Then why the heck do you want us to advertise that the Morse test is gone.

Not the YOU "us," Michael. The ARRL badly needs new membership.
They've never had as many as a quarter of all U.S. amateur
radio licensees as members and are currently down around just
20% of licensees. ARRL is more business than organization and
the business side of the house has to show a profit.

I wonder why so many people who hate Ham radio seem to know exactly how
Ham radio is supposed to be?

Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

You are sounding EXACTLY like the "superior OTs" you decry in
another message...like everyone MUST accept what YOU accept
as a definition. Tsk.

So's dropping a line in the water and trying to hook a fish, but
millions of folks do it every year...Not because it's the only way to
feed their families, but just for fun.

Anyone can get into chat rooms or exchange e-mail with folks
almost anywhere in the world...but there will still be the thrill of
doing it with "wireless".

"Thrill?!?" Has Stebie gotten an Orion and having oriongasms?

"Wireless" today refers to LANs coupled by radio, not wires.
See the acronym WLAN and what the "W" stands for.

Almost exactly 50 years ago I picked up a handset in Tokyo
and spoke to my counterpart in San Francisco, all a part of
the Army network. First time I'd "done DX" on HF. WAs
there supposed to be a "thrill" associated with using that
24/7 communications circuit? :-) Perhaps novel is the word,
but I already knew the circuit was there 24/7 as were all the
other radio circuits.

I've used radio to communicate from land, sea, and air. Not
a magic thing. If there be "magic" then it was listening to
Edward R. Murrow reporting live from London in 1940 in the
midst of the London Bombing. "Magic" is a subjective thing.

Radio waves and electrons do NOT, nor ever did operate
according to human emotional dictates. Try to remember that.

If you want to attract the bright intelligent minds, you better be
prepared to challenge them. Challenge them to let them in, challenge
them when they get here. Do you think ax.25 is going to attract people?

To Jayson again: (Sorry Steve, I didn't see the post until now)

Question number 1 - Why do so many people seem to think that the
internet is some kind of Hi-Tech wonderland - and that Amateur Radio
darn well better emulate it?

Alternate Question number 1: Why are you getting defensive?

Side note..... If you think that the Internet is at the cutting
edge.... well, we know that you aren't.

And yes, mentioning AX. 25 is telling me that. Packet radio is FAIAP
not at all about transmission of large amounts of data. It has morphed
into APRS, GPS apps, C and C and other areas which do indeed attract
bright people who want to experiment.

Aren't you conflicting with yourself on that?

"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

BTW, isn't there a slight contradiction between wanting to attract
large number of people, and wanting to attract the bright and intelligent?

How does a requirement of knowing 161-year-old morsemanship
skill attract the "bright and intelligent?" :-)

What the six-tiered-class system of old U.S. amateur radio
licensing did was attract some people who NEEDED to climb
ladders of accomplishment through the classes to get to the
top...and then proclaim their "superiority in radio!" :-)


Yet all they whine about is the code test and that 3% of the
allocations that do require a code test.

Why?

Those type hate Hams. Maybe that isn't gospel truth, but its close enough.

Poor babies...feeling "hated" are you both?

Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed
"definitions" of What It Is All About?

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy. All those who disagree with you
two HATE YOU! Not only that, THEY HATE HAM RADIO...because you
two define yourself as "ham radio!" [you two have the conspiracy
thing all in a row, lined up...in your minds]

Because all THEY are interested in is playing on HF...If all those
engineering types had any interest in obtaining an Amateur Radio
license for "experimenting" purposes, it would be a done deal.

Yup.

Tsk. How little you two know of REAL engineering and
"experimentation." :-)

You two sound like an anvil chorus playing a Newington stage.
SRO you ain't.

Have fun in the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). [why
are you here instead of playing with your HF radios?]

bit bit

wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37


K4YZ wrote:

Jayson Davis wrote:


As soon as cw falls, I see the most important step being in
"advertising" the fact that cw is no longer a requirement. Spreading
the word and helping others to study and pass the written exam will be
key in getting the numbers we need at that time.

I don't even see that as being a "happening thing", Jayson.
Amateur Radio, just like fishing, or NASCAR, or R/C models, etc etc has
always attracted a certain "crowd".

And a strange line of thought Jayson uses. Kind of like we're supposed
to say:

"Ham Radio - we don't suck now!"


That would be a REALISTIC beginning... :-)

Oh, Michael, we've all seen the "crowd" represented by K4YZ. :-)


Steve represents mostly himself. I've seen a lot of people who
represent a lot of things.

So, other than the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society)
thinking their sky has fallen, what would YOU really
advertise U.S. amateur radio in its "new beginning" after
WT Docket 05-235 turns into an R&O?


It's not an issue of numbers, it's an issue of why would anyone want to
become an amateur radio operator. Really now, why would you want to do
that? To talk on repeaters? To work some guy on 20 meters? The whole
hobby is passe.

To Jayson:

Then why the heck do you want us to advertise that the Morse test is gone.


Not the YOU "us," Michael. The ARRL badly needs new membership.
They've never had as many as a quarter of all U.S. amateur
radio licensees as members and are currently down around just
20% of licensees.

ARR?

ARRL is more business than organization and
the business side of the house has to show a profit.


I wonder why so many people who hate Ham radio seem to know exactly how
Ham radio is supposed to be?


Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

You are sounding EXACTLY like the "superior OTs" you decry in
another message...like everyone MUST accept what YOU accept
as a definition. Tsk.

Tsk indeed. My question is a simple one. Its a rough equivalent of the
US basing our economic policy on what a group of olde tyme Russian
communists think it should be. They didn't like us much at all. I bet
they had some "good ideas" on how we should run things though...


So's dropping a line in the water and trying to hook a fish, but
millions of folks do it every year...Not because it's the only way to
feed their families, but just for fun.

Anyone can get into chat rooms or exchange e-mail with folks
almost anywhere in the world...but there will still be the thrill of
doing it with "wireless".


"Thrill?!?" Has Stebie gotten an Orion and having oriongasms?

"Wireless" today refers to LANs coupled by radio, not wires.
See the acronym WLAN and what the "W" stands for.

Almost exactly 50 years ago I picked up a handset in Tokyo
and spoke to my counterpart in San Francisco, all a part of
the Army network. First time I'd "done DX" on HF. WAs
there supposed to be a "thrill" associated with using that
24/7 communications circuit? :-) Perhaps novel is the word,
but I already knew the circuit was there 24/7 as were all the
other radio circuits.

I've used radio to communicate from land, sea, and air. Not
a magic thing. If there be "magic" then it was listening to
Edward R. Murrow reporting live from London in 1940 in the
midst of the London Bombing. "Magic" is a subjective thing.

Radio waves and electrons do NOT, nor ever did operate
according to human emotional dictates. Try to remember that.


If you want to attract the bright intelligent minds, you better be
prepared to challenge them. Challenge them to let them in, challenge
them when they get here. Do you think ax.25 is going to attract people?

To Jayson again: (Sorry Steve, I didn't see the post until now)

Question number 1 - Why do so many people seem to think that the
internet is some kind of Hi-Tech wonderland - and that Amateur Radio
darn well better emulate it?


Alternate Question number 1: Why are you getting defensive?


Side note..... If you think that the Internet is at the cutting
edge.... well, we know that you aren't.

And yes, mentioning AX. 25 is telling me that. Packet radio is FAIAP
not at all about transmission of large amounts of data. It has morphed
into APRS, GPS apps, C and C and other areas which do indeed attract
bright people who want to experiment.


Aren't you conflicting with yourself on that?

"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

BTW, isn't there a slight contradiction between wanting to attract
large number of people, and wanting to attract the bright and intelligent?


How does a requirement of knowing 161-year-old morsemanship
skill attract the "bright and intelligent?" :-)

non sequitur. I wasn't writing of Morse code.

What the six-tiered-class system of old U.S. amateur radio
licensing did was attract some people who NEEDED to climb
ladders of accomplishment through the classes to get to the
top...and then proclaim their "superiority in radio!" :-)



Yet all they whine about is the code test and that 3% of the
allocations that do require a code test.

Why?

Those type hate Hams. Maybe that isn't gospel truth, but its close enough.


Poor babies...feeling "hated" are you both?

Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed
"definitions" of What It Is All About?

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy. All those who disagree with you
two HATE YOU! Not only that, THEY HATE HAM RADIO...because you
two define yourself as "ham radio!" [you two have the conspiracy
thing all in a row, lined up...in your minds]

Easy there, don't get the B.P. up!


Because all THEY are interested in is playing on HF...If all those
engineering types had any interest in obtaining an Amateur Radio
license for "experimenting" purposes, it would be a done deal.

Yup.


Tsk. How little you two know of REAL engineering and
"experimentation." :-)

So what you are saying is that those who do know about REAL engineering
and "experimentation" won't do it unless only everything is to their
exact liking? Otherwise they will simply wait until everything is to
their exact liking?

You two sound like an anvil chorus playing a Newington stage.
SRO you ain't.

Have fun in the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). [why
are you here instead of playing with your HF radios?]

I am here *while* I'm playing with my HF radio.

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm

wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37
K4YZ wrote:
Jayson Davis wrote:


And a strange line of thought Jayson uses. Kind of like we're supposed
to say:

"Ham Radio - we don't suck now!"

That would be a REALISTIC beginning... :-)

Oh, Michael, we've all seen the "crowd" represented by K4YZ. :-)

Steve represents mostly himself. I've seen a lot of people who
represent a lot of things.

Ahhhh...but to merely disagree with K4YZ is to HATE HAM RADIO!

Ergo, he IS ham radio! :-)


To Jayson:

Then why the heck do you want us to advertise that the Morse test is gone.

Not the YOU "us," Michael. The ARRL badly needs new membership.
They've never had as many as a quarter of all U.S. amateur
radio licensees as members and are currently down around just
20% of licensees.

ARR?

I wrote "ARRL" sweetums...and it comes back as "ARRL."


ARRL is more business than organization and
the business side of the house has to show a profit.

I wonder why so many people who hate Ham radio seem to know exactly how
Ham radio is supposed to be?

Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for
same.

Others merely INTERPRET what THEY THINK it is about.


You are sounding EXACTLY like the "superior OTs" you decry in
another message...like everyone MUST accept what YOU accept
as a definition. Tsk.

Tsk indeed. My question is a simple one. Its a rough equivalent of the
US basing our economic policy on what a group of olde tyme Russian
communists think it should be. They didn't like us much at all. I bet
they had some "good ideas" on how we should run things though...

"Russian communists" have NOTHING to do with this NPRM.

Try to stay focussed.


"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.

The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.

Actually, that "argument" is total bull**** OUT of the academic
arena. ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on
the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications.
It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes
longer, and no longer "gets through" better.

All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a
sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC
isn't a fraternity house either.


BTW, isn't there a slight contradiction between wanting to attract
large number of people, and wanting to attract the bright and intelligent?

How does a requirement of knowing 161-year-old morsemanship
skill attract the "bright and intelligent?" :-)

non sequitur. I wasn't writing of Morse code.

Hello? See that Subject Line up on the Header? This whole thread
is about the NPRM in WT Docket 05-235...which is about DROPPING
the MORSE CODE TEST.

I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time.


Yet all they whine about is the code test and that 3% of the
allocations that do require a code test.

Why?

Those type hate Hams. Maybe that isn't gospel truth, but its close enough.

Poor babies...feeling "hated" are you both?

Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?

Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed
"definitions" of What It Is All About?

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.


Yes, it's all a big conspiracy. All those who disagree with you
two HATE YOU! Not only that, THEY HATE HAM RADIO...because you
two define yourself as "ham radio!" [you two have the conspiracy
thing all in a row, lined up...in your minds]

Easy there, don't get the B.P. up!

Are you now a "nurse?" My "beep" is as close to 120 over 80 as an
adult male can get.

Tsk, Michael, your "visual hearing" is suffering from "visual
tinnitus" also. Or its your ego getting in the way of logical
objectivity. Try to understand that YOU do NOT define U.S.
amateur radio...the FCC does. Just because others don't accept
your interpretation does NOT mean they "hate ham radio."


Tsk. How little you two know of REAL engineering and
"experimentation." :-)

So what you are saying is that those who do know about REAL engineering
and "experimentation" won't do it unless only everything is to their
exact liking? Otherwise they will simply wait until everything is to
their exact liking?

No, I'm just saying you two don't know dink about REAL
engineering...or experimentation. :-)

You both like to posture as if you do, but neither does. :-)

Have fun in the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). [why
are you here instead of playing with your HF radios?]

I am here *while* I'm playing with my HF radio.

BS. At a little after 1:30 on a Friday afternoon you should
be WORKING at your place of employment. You only work 4 days
a week? Tsk, NOT the Capitalist Way!

At the close of FCC business in DC on 22 Jul 05, the Comments
on WT Docket 05-235 are running about 2:1 in favor of dropping
the code test. [just a little reminder] Stay "tuned." On your
"HF radio" or your computer. [don't get them mixed up]

bit bit

wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm

wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37

Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for
same.

Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Poor attempt at a redirect.

Try to stay focussed.

"Focused", Lennie.

Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?!

"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.

No, it's not.

It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school,
and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie.

I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment
that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to
know..."

The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.

(Oh jeeze...same Lennie crap, fermented and dropped on the door
step again...)

But Part 97 DOES mandate that the Amateur Radio Service serve as a
training enviroment for self-education and training.

Unless they set the goals, what are they to train for?

Actually, that "argument" is total bull#### OUT of the academic
arena.

You and Markie must have shareware'd that dictionary of
profanities, Lennie.

ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on
the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications.

A-hem.....

(reading back across header on top...
'rec.radio.AMATEUR.policy'....)

It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes
longer, and no longer "gets through" better.

"Takes longer" than what? You taking that Extra right out of the
box?

All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a
sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC
isn't a fraternity house either.

And you're lying again. Sheeesh...couldn't keep it to even
marginally valid arguments, could you...?!?!

I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time.

Funny...

We've thought the same of you a LOT of the times...

Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?

No hate, Lennie.

I just don't tolerate liars.

You're a documented liar. You're more verbose and grammatically
correct than other liars in this forum (specifically N0IMD and KB9RQZ)
but you're a liar none-the-less.

Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed
"definitions" of What It Is All About?

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.

EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.

The newsgroup moderator has spoken.

Carry on, Lennie...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
hack


EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.

The newsgroup moderator has spoken.

look like Stvie is indeed claiming the title and..

Carry on, Lennie...

giving lenn the floor

Steve, K4YZ

On 23 Jul 2005 06:25:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:



wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm

wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37

snip

Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Poor attempt at a redirect.

Try to stay focussed.

"Focused", Lennie.

Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?!


The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary does indeed refer - both
spellings are correct:

Main Entry: focus
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): fo·cused also fo·cussed

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=focussed

snip

Steve, K4YZ

73, Leo

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm


wrote:

From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37


Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for
same.


Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just
*how* to reply.

Poor attempt at a redirect.


Try to stay focussed.


"Focused", Lennie.

Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?!


"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.


No, it's not.

It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school,
and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie.

I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment
that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to
know..."

There are plenty enough of that type running around.

It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark
must be answered with:

Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll
get started on what you need to know.




The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.


(Oh jeeze...same Lennie crap, fermented and dropped on the door
step again...)

But Part 97 DOES mandate that the Amateur Radio Service serve as a
training enviroment for self-education and training.

Unless they set the goals, what are they to train for?


Actually, that "argument" is total bull#### OUT of the academic
arena.


You and Markie must have shareware'd that dictionary of
profanities, Lennie.

Yuck - potty mouth ;^)


ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on
the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications.


A-hem.....

(reading back across header on top...
'rec.radio.AMATEUR.policy'....)

I'll bet it's hotter down south than it is in the summer, too!


It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes
longer, and no longer "gets through" better.


"Takes longer" than what? You taking that Extra right out of the
box?


All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a
sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC
isn't a fraternity house either.


And you're lying again. Sheeesh...couldn't keep it to even
marginally valid arguments, could you...?!?!


I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time.


Funny...

We've thought the same of you a LOT of the times...



Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?


No hate, Lennie.

I just don't tolerate liars.

And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of
the water.

You're a documented liar. You're more verbose and grammatically
correct than other liars in this forum (specifically N0IMD and KB9RQZ)
but you're a liar none-the-less.


Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed
"definitions" of What It Is All About?

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.

Okay, I'll slow down and explain.

See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with
your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?".

Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is
true, it remains a foolish thing.

It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons
of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally.

So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50
million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are
like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still
wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't
like make it right, you know?

Whew....




EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.

The newsgroup moderator has spoken.

Carry on, Lennie...

Steve, K4YZ


Can I go to the bathroom now????

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm
wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37

Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period.

You folks all missed an important point.

We are told in no uncertain terms that

"THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period."

But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio

"is a HOBBY".

Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97.
The FCC
doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of
the Amateur Radio Service.

So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use
the
word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio
*is* a
hobby.

Do you see the contradiction?

Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about.....

They grant the licenses for same.

Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just
*how* to reply.

Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're
"loaded".

"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.

No, it's not.

It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school,
and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie.

I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment
that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to
know..."

There are plenty enough of that type running around.

It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark
must be answered with:

Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll
get started on what you need to know.

I'll have to remember that one!

The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.

Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?

No hate, Lennie.

I just don't tolerate liars.

And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of
the water.

I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory
destroyed.

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.

Okay, I'll slow down and explain.

See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with
your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?".

Bummer!

Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is
true, it remains a foolish thing.

To the max, man...

It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons
of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally.

It's where their heads are at. Different scene.

So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50
million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are
like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still
wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't
like make it right, you know?

Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude.

Whew....

To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you
believe"

73 de Jim, N2EY