John Smith wrote:
Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands...


Good grief!! So you can tell from listening to the bands how many hams
there are. WOW!! Do you think all 600,000+ licensed operators are on at
the same time? Do you even think all 600,000 are active on the bands?
Which bands to you tune? Do you think you can hear all the stations that
are on 40 meters? Do you think you can hear all the stations that are on
20, 15, 10 meters at any one time? Can you hear all the 2 meter, 440,
and other UHF activity going on all over the country?
Do you think?

As of July 31, 2005

Novice - 27,975 (-43.28%) (-21,354)
Tech/+ - 317,655 (-5.02%) (-16,800)
General - 136,435 (+20.81%) (+23,490)
Advanced - 75,812 (-24.28%) (-24,236)
Extra - 106,900 (+35.74%) (+28,150)

Total All Classes - 664,040

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
k.net...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those
who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those
figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT!

John

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

Dave Heil

And he obviously hasn't been on the bands during a major contest! Wall to
wall signals is inadequate to describe the activity.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dave:

Anyone with a computer can grab the statistics off the FCC and arrl sites,
who is left which trusts them, if you, don't include me.

No, I was born at different time, when you got real data, real numbers,
real people to stand behind it, I understand the youngsters might be
confused by all this, but all us old timers have a real past when
everything was different. We have a bit more "history" to go by....

I guess you can just chuck me into the "conspiracy nuts" group, I don't
trust the figure, politicians, and news anymore... if I have to
appoligize for it, so be it... but don't consider it a half-felt one...

Frankly, I like progress, don't much care for liars and "spin doctors."

John


On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:34:26 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc...

Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT!

John

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

Dave Heil

Dee:

Nope, never have seen all the bandwidths in as much use as back during the
70's and early 80's, did you have a ticket back then? My gawd, those
oldtimers have forgotten what a real "pileup" means! Congestion worse
than imagined in my worst nightmare!

Never have had interest in "contesting", much prefer just a gentle
argument around stuff which "seems to matter"... never had a wall covered
with QSL cards, only asked the ones who interested me, which I wanted to
be reminded of, to correspond--hell, guess I am "not with it", but never
have been, don't count one me now to "get with it."
lack-a-daisyial-grin-and-a-wink... that "different drummer" has always
caught my attention, started listening as a youth, never quit...

I have never been afraid to be different, if there is just one of me--so
be it!

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:51:27 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
k.net...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those
who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc... Those
figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT!

John

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

Dave Heil

And he obviously hasn't been on the bands during a major contest! Wall to
wall signals is inadequate to describe the activity.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Dee:

I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured
equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand.

I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such
hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such
hobbies.

I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio
a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc...

It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a
factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it
has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is
left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find
out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would
continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird...

John



There is no longer any need to keep repeating the false mantras that "ham
radio is dying" and "Morse code stops people from becoming hams" since the
FCC will be eliminating the code test.

Perhaps a *new* mantra will come out?

- Mike

Dave Heil wrote:

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary
importance to opinion.

If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the
database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying,
that is the truth.

If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to
hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth.

If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true.

You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along,
so why do it?

- Mike KB3EIA -

BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner as
he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but along
the same lines
Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way to
HF digital soon. 8^)

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN
LIARS!"

John


break
It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far
greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more
numerous than then. It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a
ham could.

proves nothing the sort

the use of the word "proof" is this Newsgroup is shocking (and some
folks complain my use of words is bad i just mispell them rather than
male there meaning)

without consideing the population growth rates when certain changes
were made you can't tell where wed be IF say the FCC (and the US) had
screew the s25 and reducing testing to "---...---" and saying if you
can rudersatnd that means distress you have passed a code test (which
would have met the letter of the treaty) how many ham would swould
there today?

I don't know but a lot more I think, I can't prove it, or course but I
don't use the word "proof" so litely

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Those "false mantras" are what the FCC and world woke up to, and believed...

A course in logic should be given before one can use their amateur license!

Sorry John you are Wrong, even in jest, even the thought of a logic or
testing hams of the meaning of the word "proof" could be the final nail
in the coffin

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:11:41 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

I think it more reflects the readily availability of manufactured
equipment as compared to equip constructed by ones own hand.

I also think it has to do with an economy which allows one to support such
hobbies, and the abundant free time individuals have to devote to such
hobbies.

I also think it has to do with education and the masses do not find radio
a "dark mystery" anymore, etc, etc...

It has to do with a lot of things... one I don't even consider is a
factor which has helped the popularity of ham radio is CW... indeed, it
has served as a hindrance... only the degree which it has hindered is
left to be argued, in my humble opinion--and shortly we are due to find
out... indeed, without some sort of "shot in the arm" amateur radio would
continue its' course and go the way of the dodo bird...

John


There is no longer any need to keep repeating the false mantras that "ham
radio is dying" and "Morse code stops people from becoming hams" since the
FCC will be eliminating the code test.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc...

Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT!

th book are cooked in about the manner you describe (the recipe of the
cooking varies slightly accross the nations )and is then seasonaly
cooked on top of that

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:39:25 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dee:

We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large
number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists,
millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers
are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn
smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop
nylon attached to us!


There are over 600,000 hams in the US.

How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are
something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out
before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams!

John


In this day and age, any technical or semi-technical hobby is lucky to have
any members at all.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike:

As usual, you got everything backwards... digital is not analog, end of
story.

The modem on the mic just points out hams are too lazy, or two limited to
even be able to kludge a simple digital project together, when the parts
are just laying around. Hell, you have to use such stuff, real digital
equip is few are far between and there are so few hams the call for such
equip is almost non-existant, and that is sure not much motivation for
manufacturers to build any!

Your arguments are lame, you are confused, you are just ****ed that some
real numbers are going to come to amateur radio. You know the old brass
pounders are going to be setting out there chatting with the fewer and
fewer of themselves which survive each and every new coming year, time is
their enemy and the hope of progress...

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:47:57 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary
importance to opinion.

If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the
database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying,
that is the truth.

If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to
hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth.

If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true.

You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go along,
so why do it?

- Mike KB3EIA -

BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner as
he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but along
the same lines
Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way to
HF digital soon. 8^)