|
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN. No code practice sessions? No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers available to teach those wish to learn. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? Not unless it is part of an emergency net, and therefore inherently part of two way conversations. If it is just a broadcast, turn on Fox News or CNN. No code practice sessions? No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. No remote control of satellites? That is part of establishing (or cutting off) two way communications No remote control of model airplanes? Is that us? It is currently allowed under the FCC rules. And some people do use it for that. I forget the details since I don't get into remote control models. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... [snip] See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins! Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent..... - Mike KB3EIA - I've heard both the K1MAN transmissions and the W1AW transmissions. They are so far apart that it doesn't take "Byzantine qualifications" to separate the two. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Michael Coslo wrote:
No remote control of model airplanes? Is that us? Yep, six meters. |
Dee:
Kinda of like the "Jehovah Witnesses" and the Catholics? Or, kinda like the republicans and the democrats? Or, kinda like the left wing and the right wing? Or, kinda like the vegetarians and the meat eaters? Point is, if one can--the other can too!!! John On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:45:36 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... [snip] See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins! Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent..... - Mike KB3EIA - I've heard both the K1MAN transmissions and the W1AW transmissions. They are so far apart that it doesn't take "Byzantine qualifications" to separate the two. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Michael Coslo wrote: Dave wrote: "K=D8HB" wrote in message nk.net... "Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? No code practice sessions? No remote control of satellites? No remote control of model airplanes? No remote control of repeaters? No telemetry from satellites? No propagation beacons? No APRS? (Not even in balloons?) No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system? No................ "Period" Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch! 73, de Hans, K0HB don't forget, you have to call cq until someone answers you, otherwise = it would be a one-way transmission! so you better be darn sure there is someone that is going to answer you before you call cq. Negative. Unless a person is some kind of nut case where they just sit and call CQ without any intention of establishing a QSO, they are trying to engage in a two-way conversation. Is K1MAN trying to engage in a QSO? Is ARRL trying to engage in a QSO? Is someone calling CQ trying to engage in a QSO? Someone using a repeater? Presumably, the answers are no, no, yes, yes. See, it isn't to hard to have my opinion on this. It is at least as consistent as the Byzantine qualifications that people try to use to justify W1AW broadcasts versus K1MAN bulletins! Some of us think perhaps a little more consistent..... - Mike KB3EIA - Who'se listening to W1AW anyway? I mean, except for field day points. Shut down Hiram and Baxter and be done with it. |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: Kinda of like the "Jehovah Witnesses" and the Catholics? Or, kinda like the republicans and the democrats? Or, kinda like the left wing and the right wing? Or, kinda like the vegetarians and the meat eaters? Point is, if one can--the other can too!!! John No your comparison is not valid. In the case of W1AW & K1MAN, the point is that one adheres to the rules as they exist at this time and the other does not. If you study the "history" of amateur radio, those rules were crafted to allow W1AW to do exactly what it was doing at the time and they adhere to those same requirements today. If K1MAN adhered to those rules, it would not be possible to stop him. But he chose not too. If you think W1AW ought to go too, then work to change the rules. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
If you think W1AW ought
to go too, then work to change the rules. The problem with this is many have tried to change the rules regarding information bulletins and the FCC has dismissed them all. The FCC last time someone purposal to change the rules regarding Information Bulletins (Which was W5YI) back in the 90's said they would not hear any rule changes regarding information bulletin again. Todd N9OGL |
No your comparison is not valid. In the case of W1AW & K1MAN, the point is
that one adheres to the rules as they exist at this time and the other does not. If you study the "history" of amateur radio, those rules were crafted to allow W1AW to do exactly what it was doing at the time and they adhere to those same requirements today. If K1MAN adhered to those rules, it would not be possible to stop him. But he chose not too. If you think W1AW ought to go too, then work to change the rules. The problem is the rules are very vague. There is a thin line between broadcasting and information bulletins but here is a list of things K1MAN SHOULD of done. 1. Make sure the frequency wasn't in uses. If the frequency was in use then he should of moved to a different fequency. 2. Stay at the control point while the transmission was going on 3. Don't avertise or talk about his website. If he would of done this he would not be in the trouble he's in now. Todd N9OGL |
Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8HB wrote: cut No. With the dropping of Element 1, code testing can now be self taught. Get on the air, and find someone who will QSO wit ya. And no anyhow. With the dropping of the code testing, it will be even more important to have the code practice transmissions. There will be fewer Elmers availab= le to teach those wish to learn. What? is there a part of the NPRM I missed like carting off the Code users to some kind of death camp? The ending of code testing will not reduce the number of code using hams. Time may do that though the actions of the grim reaper and the failure of Code users to recruit others to replace them, but I doubt that will kill CW USE or learning of the mode Further with computers and programs in existance today any one that wishes to make the attempt to learn Morse Code has the tools to do so =20 Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com