"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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

The IRS knows to better accuracy the amount of people
earning W2 income. If they wanted to and allowed to,
they could say that X% of people who paid taxes before
are now unemployed, some out of work for 2 years or more.
And how many people are earning less income than last
year.

Pretty soon I'll be paying income tax again. IE, found
a job commensurate with my education/skills. I start
in 2 weeks. Well, I guess President Bush made good
on his promise to cut my taxes, I paid zero last year.
Though I'd like to have some income....



Ham radio still has another major obstacle than the
code. Antenna restrictions. CCRs and such.

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.


True, Dee. But there are a number of people hard at work to change that!

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

the use of the word "proof" is this Newsgroup is shocking


Don't know about this newsgroup, but in math class "proofs"
were things that claimed to verify that some assertion was
in fact true. I never really figured out how proofs actually
worked or why I should care. As proofs never showed on tests.
All the "proof" I ever needed was that some process applied
to a test problem would yield a "correct" answer and I'd
get a decent grade.

From: "Dee Flint" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 18:16


"John Smith" wrote in message

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!"

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.

UNTRUE, Dee. The peak in license numbers happened a few
days longer than TWO YEARS AGO. The number of total U.S.
radio amateur licenses are now over 6 thousand LESS than
they were two years ago.

It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a
ham could.

Yes, Dee, and you too can become a concert violinist, an
artist-illustrator, a champion athlete, an intellectual
somebody IF YOU WORK REALLY REALLY HARD AT IT...plus one
tiny things: A physical aptitude ability to do that.

bee bop