|
|
Need any more proof?
Dan/W4NTI wrote in message ups.com... From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am " wrote in From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that. Alun, all those character-assassination statements of "hating hams" are just that, character-assassination attempts. Morsemanship - as a "requirement" for amateur radio licensing has evolved to a high fantasy art, typified by the pseudo- arithmetic of: HamRadio = MorseCode. Put another way: "ARS" = Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Those radio amateurs who fancy themselves good at radiotelegraphy are incensed at such comparisons. They wish the ARS to be in Their Image. [it's as simple as that] Hence the character assassination attempts when they are challenged. I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue, more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue. Some radio amateurs who are NOT in the radio-electronics industry keep insisting that "amateur radio was their first stepping-stone into a radio-electronics working career." That's quite untrue. All of electronics (radio is a subset within that) is fascinating in and of itself to those who chose to work within it. For the vast majority of workers IN the electronics-radio industry, they did NOT "begin" as licensed radio amateurs. Hams who are IN the industry try to say contrary but they are just speaking of themselves, failing to look around at all the others around them who did not "get ham licenses first." Some of the incensed have already replied with "case histories" from their own work, naming callsigns, hollering "see?! see?!" That's a very restrictive "example" since they've not gone beyond a very small bound of their own experience. The IEEE world membership exceeds a quarter million and non-IEEE workers are in the millions worldwide. Articles in the trade press (over a dozen free-subscription monthlies) do not mention morse code as having any significance. If morse code is mentioned at all it is in a historical context or as a bit of wry humor. What too many United States radio amateurs are stuck with is a kind of conditioned thinking (i.e., "brainwashing") by a singular publishing house cum membership organization that over-emphasizes morse code and morsemanship as positive attributes for a hobby. The League has lobbied for, and gotten, high-rate morsemanship as a prerequisite for "advanced" (status/rank/privilege) class licensing...and just never gave up on that until after WRC-03. The League's core membership and BoD are still of that generation and are stuck in their ways. They can't change. As Cecil Moore used to write in here, "If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." :-) If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be, s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the theory easier). Astute observation. I agree with most of that. I will disagree only with the "what if" of 1993 and any possibility of S25 being changed in any radical way. The IARU had not yet been turned around on their collective code test opinion, their member organizations still fixated on standards and practices of their leaders' youth and formative years. However, the no-code-test movement had already been started a decade before that, albeit small, ineffectual in the beginning but growing in intensity as time went on. Judging by all the past reports of WARCs and WRCs, the IARU was more influential with the ITU than what the ARRL pretended to be. The IARU was also embroiled in a number of problems such as the 40m amateur v. SWBC allocations that was SUPPOSED to have been addressed at WARC-79. It was put off...and put off...until finally, after 24 years it achieved a solution at WRC-03...which won't be fully implemented until a few years from now. In the United States the ARRL still hasn't fully understood that the 1991 opening up of the no-code-test Technician class license added over 200 thousand NEW radio amateurs to the amateur database. If that had not happened, the United States hams would have SHRUNK in overall numbers in today's database...even though the overall population is continuing to increase. As it is, the number of amateur licensees here have been virtually stagnant for over two years, NOT growing and decreasing a miniscule amount since the 2003 peak period. The trend is THERE. The licensees keeping the numbers up are the newcomers arriving via the no- code-test Tech class. Unrenewed license attrition is greater. The enormous worldwide growth of the Internet and availability of personal computers has stolen MUCH of the "magic" out of the "shortwave radio" mystique. That can't be regained by insisting on the alleged "necessity" to learn and test for radio- telegraphy...for a hobby. Morse code won't defeat terrorists or save lives or be the First Responder on the scene of disasters. Radio - by itself - still has tremendous fascination to many. It may be that elimination of the code test will produce some increase. Certainly, judging from Comments of WT Docket 05-235, there will be a surge of "upgraders" to "higher" classes. That does little to the overall license totals. The PC and Internet is the Great Challenge to amateur radio for 24/7 personal communications...almost gargantuan competition, already dwarfing other competitors. The number of Comments on Docket 05-235, after only two months, are GREATER than the total number of Comments on "restructuring" (WT Docket 98-143) for all of 1998! Most filings on 05-235 are done electronically. Over on www.qrz.com, the electronic comments on code testing are greater than four times the filings on 05-235 (I stopped reading them a couple weeks ago...too many). We are IN the electronic digital age NOW. I'll go out on a limb and say that, should code testing be abolished for amateur radio, the license totals might jump to 20% more than current numbers and then level off. Assumption only, more of a guess than anything. The sky will fall on the old amateur morsemen, the "world as they know it" will be a total disaster zone with bitter, angry recriminations abounding. They will ignore all the years, the decades of themselves parading proudly as Champions of Radio and sneering, snarling at no-coders. |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message legroups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message glegroups.com... From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser. plonk Dan/W4NTI Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting boring As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it? Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value Boring Dan Boring He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs. What point? that people should be censored? Censored? Who said that? Dan All dan posts in reply is demands for credentcail and that anyone without credentcails he apporoves should not post Not true at all.....post all you or he wants. I just consider the source. No creditability. My point is that I don't have to reply. I really don't. He can post all he wants, and I read it, and reply or not as is my wish. Do you think I have to reply to him, Mark? Is my ignoring the vast majority of his postings some sort of censorship?never said anything of the sort All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose, sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the hallamrk Jim, N2EY Better go back and read them posts, Mark. I have read em I agree...read them again....Perhaps you will understand them this time. Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to themselves, and then to the rest of us Your opinion, Mark. My opinion is otherwise. So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it. No point at all. |
Has anyone noticed that those that accuse are usually guilty of the same
sort of offense? Dan/W4NTI wrote in message oups.com... From: an_old_friend on Sep 17, 8:38 am Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs. What point? that people should be censored? Coslo wants a cozy little chatroom with all in general agreement with him. As he's written before, he wants to be entertained. When he can't come up with valid replies on the SUBJECT, he resorts to personal insults such as "ham hating." Tsk, tsk. Coslo falls into too much self-identification of himself as "ham radio." Be opposed to Coslo's opinion and (in his view) one is "hating ham radio." The same with Jeswald, Heil, and Miccolis. All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose, sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the hallamrk Jim, N2EY Consider what I write in here as a "first draft." It isn't polished to someone's perfection but then I'm NOT getting paid anything to post. It isn't worth my time to sit and rewrite to publishing standards, not to my wallet, not to my ego. It is, in effect, flow-of-consciousness CONVERSATION with unseen beings somehwere in netland. :-) Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to themselves, and then to the rest of us I don't hate hams and I rather like tuna/albacore, but only if packed in water, not oil. :-) Coslo got ****ed off again and used an old, old computer-modem ploy of winning message points by repeating untruths of his opponents...instead of concentrating on the SUBJECT under discussion. That ploy is sometimes effective to "win friends" (to his viewpoint) but is just egregious. It is well-known to those of us having done computer-modem communications a long time. So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it. Coslo expects cheers, applause, and respect because he exists? Things don't work out that way on contentious, highly-polarized subject discussions. One has to be TOUGH to take some of the personal insults tossed out by others. [I've survived 21 years of that] It's very, very easy to toss those egregious personal insults right back at them. I could send a series of postings that have nothing else but "COSLO *HATES* NO-CODERS" in them. That's quick, easy. Some of the Coders in here would cheer and applaud, thanking me for my "insight." :-) But, that wastes time and memory space on servers, and is petty, so I won't do it. :-) It's okay for Coslo to say I "hate ham radio." Or Jeswald. Or Heil. Or Miccolis. Or Robeson. They've already done that. I know, and others know, it isn't true. But, They are ham radio so any disagreement with them is taken as a "mass insult" on hundreds of thousands of hams! To paraphrase Percy Bysshe Shelley: "Look upon his words, ye mighty, and despair!"* * From the poem "Ozymandias" but title could be paraphrased as "Ozy-ham-dias," king of kings. :-) |
|
|
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 17, 8:38 am Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: Coslo wants a cozy little chatroom with all in general agreement with him. As he's written before, he wants to be entertained. When he can't come up with valid replies on the SUBJECT, he resorts to personal insults such as "ham hating." Tsk, tsk. Is that how you end up resorting to the personal insults here? You can't come up with a valid reply on "the subject" (the subject being defined as anything you want to discuss)? no Coslo falls into too much self-identification of himself as "ham radio." Be opposed to Coslo's opinion and (in his view) one is "hating ham radio." The same with Jeswald, Heil, and Miccolis. Too much self-identification of himself as "ham radio"? How much is too much? much of any is too much Mike may think of himself as a part of ham radio. He is a radio amateur. The same is true of all other radio amateurs who post here. You don't fall into that category. You're not involved. again with the credentcails game Dave? what is the obsessioons with credentcails? Youd think a ham licesen was the equal of a PHD as much as you make of it, instead of being more like a college admission All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose, sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the hallamrk Jim, N2EY Consider what I write in here as a "first draft." It isn't polished to someone's perfection but then I'm NOT getting paid anything to post. It isn't worth my time to sit and rewrite to publishing standards, not to my wallet, not to my ego. It is, in effect, flow-of-consciousness CONVERSATION with unseen beings somehwere in netland. :-) So "drearily predictable", "not very interesting", the name calling and constant attempts to steer every topic toward morse code testing is the result of your not being paid? result no, his wordyness is, as he said but then you can't read it unless perhaps he sent it in morse ode the real reason is more in line with the exercise of Freedom and Free will 2 things you don't think highly of Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to themselves, and then to the rest of us I don't hate hams and I rather like tuna/albacore, but only if packed in water, not oil. :-) Coslo got ****ed off again and used an old, old computer-modem ploy of winning message points by repeating untruths of his opponents...instead of concentrating on the SUBJECT under discussion. That ploy is sometimes effective to "win friends" (to his viewpoint) but is just egregious. It is well-known to those of us having done computer-modem communications a long time. But, Len, Mike hasn't repeated untruths about you. You belittle Morse Code ops. You belittle the efforts of radio amateur volunteers who rushed to the aid of those in need in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. You belittle DXers. You belittle contesters. You berate the ARRL at every opportunity. You often rant of your "PROFESSIONAL" (by now mostly past professional) status in electronics. You repeat and repeat and repeat what, to you, must be military glories. but he has related unturths, the biggest of them is that the fellows you just rattled off are the totality of Ham radio A rational being might easily assume that you dislike amateur radio and amateur radio operators. only an operator that think too highly of his personal interests in the Ham radio It's okay for Coslo to say I "hate ham radio." Or Jeswald. Or Heil. Or Miccolis. Or Robeson. They've already done that. I know, and others know, it isn't true. But, They are ham radio so any disagreement with them is taken as a "mass insult" on hundreds of thousands of hams! We all participate in amateur radio. You do not. You have no role. That much is fact. As for the others who "know" that your dislike of amateur radio is real, they'd be guys like anonymous "John Smith", Frank the CBer, Brian Burke and your old friend, Colonel Morgan. They're all kindred spirits with you. They're with you, Len. They know you. I hardly know Len, I don't know frank or John Smith I know Brain abut the same as Len But as normal you want to play the game of credentcails Dave K8MN |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message glegroups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message oglegroups.com... From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm [snip] All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose, sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the hallamrk Jim, N2EY Better go back and read them posts, Mark. Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to themselves, and then to the rest of us Your opinion, Mark. My opinion is otherwise. From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Has anyone noticed that those that accuse are usually guilty of the same sort of offense? Yaknow Dan, I find it interesting that when I refer to people as hating hams, it is an apparently a big personal insult, and yet when they call the rest of us any name they please, I guess that is some sort of joke or something? Ha ha 8^) - mike KB3EIA - |
Dee Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oglegroups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ooglegroups.com... From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm [snip] All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose, sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the hallamrk Jim, N2EY Better go back and read them posts, Mark. Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to themselves, and then to the rest of us Your opinion, Mark. My opinion is otherwise. From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. Oh, OH! Now you're going to be accused of personal insults and lying for expressing your opinion, Dee! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ooglegroups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message news:1126725620.609058.35740@g47g2000cwa. googlegroups.com... From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm [snip] All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose, sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the hallamrk Jim, N2EY Better go back and read them posts, Mark. Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to themselves, and then to the rest of us Your opinion, Mark. My opinion is otherwise. From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. Oh, OH! Now you're going to be accused of personal insults and lying for expressing your opinion, Dee! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - I can live with it ! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
Dee Flint wrote:
From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Which must be just about everyone. |
From: Mike Coslo on Sat 17 Sep 2005 14:12
Alun L. Palmer wrote: " wrote in From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that. Your opinion. I have read enough of his posts to come to a different conclusion. Translation: You didn't get the answer you wanted. Tsk, tsk. I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue, more important than any restructuring, etc. So What? Does every post have to be about Morse code testing? NPRM 05-143 is THE hot-button topic for United States amateur radio right now...and until 14 November. License testing regulations ARE amateur radio policy. But, YOU have passed your code test...and can now declare that all talk of morse code testing does not matter in here? How magnanimous of you! :-) You got yours so screw everyone else? If I make a post about something else, and he turns it to Morse code testing, does that mean I am *required* to reply? Are you or are you not a member of the Church of St. Hiram? Coslo, you've posted a lot lately on religion, theology, ethics and morals of past and present societies. Are you "qualified" in those subjects in any way? How do those subjects "belong" in a newsgroup ostensibly intended for amateur radio POLICY? So far, he has called me a "poor baby", a "sore loser", and as having a drinking problem. Do you have a drinking problem? You demonstrate being a sore loser. He accuses me of character assassination and more than I care to look up at this time. Yessir, you said I "HATE ALL HAMS!" [not in all capitals, but it might as well have been...:-) ] And if I care to point it out, I am guaranteed another poor baby thing. You are? 100% Guarantee? Sorry, your guarantee expired. Are you a disciple of Captain Future who is prescient? He calls many people Nazis, or other derisive terms. If those people act like nazis, then they get called such. TS. All because they have the unmitigated gall to disagree with him. Hoooooo...now THAT's being WAY too understated. :-) Somebody disses me, I toss it right back. The disser gets it in the kisser and then gets all ****er-y because he can't get "protection" for his dissing. Tsk, tsk, tskery. What exactly have I done to him? Lessee...you called me a "HAM HATER!" :-) He is here having his brand of good time. No, I'm not. If you were to discuss "The Necessity Of Amateur Radio" SUBJECT, it would be of interest to me. But, alas, what this sub-thread has turned to are the Travails of Michael Coslo, subtitled How Mean People Are Picking On Him. Boo hoo...let us all feel so sorry for Michael. Do you approve of such activity Alun? Is that a good way to act? Even if Mr Anderson is 100 percent correct, Is that an excuse for his "style". "Style?" You want "style?" What kind? Is there a manual on "style" that is approved by Your Lordship? How about "A Manual of Style" by Strunk and White, very much a 'have' book for writers or anyone involved in American-English grammar. Is there a Dale Caneigie charm-school manual on "style" for hams? I've been through a Manager's Charm School course, got the texts, but doesn't cover amateurs...it was for professionals. That's out. Does QST have a "Dear Abby" column? Should I run down to the close HRO store and pick up a copy? It's at the corner of Victory Blvd and Buena Vista, about three miles from my house. Maybe they have manuals of "style" there? An acquaintence is a printer. I can get all kinds of TYPE styles from him. I consider him a "font" of printing style, but not of youth. And you can tell him that I do like good strong discussion and debate. It has to be good though. Yes, yes, you've already written you "want to be ENTERTAINED." "Entertainment" generally costs MONEY. You gots? Wanna call my agent and negotiate a contract for "style?" Oh, and you've told EVERYBODY what you want...but have been unable to tell me direct. Tsk, tsk. No gots guts? Tell me Alun, how long do you think his "style" of discussion would stand up in a real debate? Sweetums, these newsgroups that grew out of ARPANET into USENET were supposed to be "discussion and debate." Back before USENET was formed out of ARPANET, users discovered the "diss" and generally insulted others with impunity, protected by geographic and chronologic distance safety. It's been that way ever since. Isn't that ENTERTAINING enough for you? No? You insist on YOUR "style?" Tell you what, just get in touch with an Internet-Usenet Boss and negotiate your OWN STYLE of newsgroup or even chat room. Be the moderator. Delete all those who don't meet your "style." That way all within be Happy with "style" and nobody dare sass the moderator. Nobody else will be able to see it, therefore nobody will interrupt. Utopia/Nirvana for "STYLE." Your very OWN. You just keep on repeating that FALSIE about "hating hams." That will make you real popular. Jeswald already likes you for that since he says the same scurrilous FALSIE. PCTA will applaud you and that will make you HAPPY. You can LIE with impunity. Stylishly yours, |
" wrote in
ups.com: From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am " wrote in From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that. Alun, all those character-assassination statements of "hating hams" are just that, character-assassination attempts. Morsemanship - as a "requirement" for amateur radio licensing has evolved to a high fantasy art, typified by the pseudo- arithmetic of: HamRadio = MorseCode. Put another way: "ARS" = Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Those radio amateurs who fancy themselves good at radiotelegraphy are incensed at such comparisons. They wish the ARS to be in Their Image. [it's as simple as that] Hence the character assassination attempts when they are challenged. I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue, more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue. Some radio amateurs who are NOT in the radio-electronics industry keep insisting that "amateur radio was their first stepping-stone into a radio-electronics working career." That's quite untrue. All of electronics (radio is a subset within that) is fascinating in and of itself to those who chose to work within it. For the vast majority of workers IN the electronics-radio industry, they did NOT "begin" as licensed radio amateurs. Hams who are IN the industry try to say contrary but they are just speaking of themselves, failing to look around at all the others around them who did not "get ham licenses first." Some of the incensed have already replied with "case histories" from their own work, naming callsigns, hollering "see?! see?!" That's a very restrictive "example" since they've not gone beyond a very small bound of their own experience. The IEEE world membership exceeds a quarter million and non-IEEE workers are in the millions worldwide. Articles in the trade press (over a dozen free-subscription monthlies) do not mention morse code as having any significance. If morse code is mentioned at all it is in a historical context or as a bit of wry humor. What too many United States radio amateurs are stuck with is a kind of conditioned thinking (i.e., "brainwashing") by a singular publishing house cum membership organization that over-emphasizes morse code and morsemanship as positive attributes for a hobby. The League has lobbied for, and gotten, high-rate morsemanship as a prerequisite for "advanced" (status/rank/privilege) class licensing...and just never gave up on that until after WRC-03. The League's core membership and BoD are still of that generation and are stuck in their ways. They can't change. As Cecil Moore used to write in here, "If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." :-) If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be, s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the theory easier). Astute observation. I agree with most of that. I will disagree only with the "what if" of 1993 and any possibility of S25 being changed in any radical way. The IARU had not yet been turned around on their collective code test opinion, their member organizations still fixated on standards and practices of their leaders' youth and formative years. However, the no-code-test movement had already been started a decade before that, albeit small, ineffectual in the beginning but growing in intensity as time went on. Judging by all the past reports of WARCs and WRCs, the IARU was more influential with the ITU than what the ARRL pretended to be. The IARU was also embroiled in a number of problems such as the 40m amateur v. SWBC allocations that was SUPPOSED to have been addressed at WARC-79. It was put off...and put off...until finally, after 24 years it achieved a solution at WRC-03...which won't be fully implemented until a few years from now. In the United States the ARRL still hasn't fully understood that the 1991 opening up of the no-code-test Technician class license added over 200 thousand NEW radio amateurs to the amateur database. If that had not happened, the United States hams would have SHRUNK in overall numbers in today's database...even though the overall population is continuing to increase. As it is, the number of amateur licensees here have been virtually stagnant for over two years, NOT growing and decreasing a miniscule amount since the 2003 peak period. The trend is THERE. The licensees keeping the numbers up are the newcomers arriving via the no- code-test Tech class. Unrenewed license attrition is greater. The enormous worldwide growth of the Internet and availability of personal computers has stolen MUCH of the "magic" out of the "shortwave radio" mystique. That can't be regained by insisting on the alleged "necessity" to learn and test for radio- telegraphy...for a hobby. Morse code won't defeat terrorists or save lives or be the First Responder on the scene of disasters. Radio - by itself - still has tremendous fascination to many. It may be that elimination of the code test will produce some increase. Certainly, judging from Comments of WT Docket 05-235, there will be a surge of "upgraders" to "higher" classes. That does little to the overall license totals. The PC and Internet is the Great Challenge to amateur radio for 24/7 personal communications...almost gargantuan competition, already dwarfing other competitors. The number of Comments on Docket 05-235, after only two months, are GREATER than the total number of Comments on "restructuring" (WT Docket 98-143) for all of 1998! Most filings on 05-235 are done electronically. Over on www.qrz.com, the electronic comments on code testing are greater than four times the filings on 05-235 (I stopped reading them a couple weeks ago...too many). We are IN the electronic digital age NOW. I'll go out on a limb and say that, should code testing be abolished for amateur radio, the license totals might jump to 20% more than current numbers and then level off. Assumption only, more of a guess than anything. The sky will fall on the old amateur morsemen, the "world as they know it" will be a total disaster zone with bitter, angry recriminations abounding. They will ignore all the years, the decades of themselves parading proudly as Champions of Radio and sneering, snarling at no-coders. The only point where I differ is that I'm personally convinced that abolition of the Morse test would have been carried in the ITU in 1993 if it could only have got to the floor. Those who delayed it did so precisely because they knew that. The ITU is one country one vote, so the US is no more influential there than Monaco or Luxembourg. |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in
link.net: No "Alun L. Palmer" Lennie the loser is transfixed on the anti-CW testing campaign. He can not carry on a discussion that has NOTHING to do with CW or testing without out bringing it into the discussion. Get it now? Dan/W4NTI "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... " wrote in ups.com: From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser. plonk Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting boring As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it? Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value Boring Dan Boring He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs. All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. Poor baby. "Sore loser-ism" displayed for all to see. :-) The whines have been pressed from grapes of morsemen's wrath! I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. "Non sequitur." [from the Latin] Tsk, tsk, tsk. Coslo wishes to be "correct" in any discussion or argument? Not possible in an OPEN forum when his discussions and arguments are NOT winning/correct/valid or on the subject of amateur radio. Note: There exist OTHER forums for discussion of religion and general moral-ethical behavior. Those do not involve amateur radio per se, though, so it is best NOT to whine and carry on about losing discussions and arguments by spouting "you hate hams!" Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. Incorrect. By so stating an incorrect falsehood, you create, in effect, a mild sort of character assassination which is not at all civil or mannerly. If you cannot stand to have your statements rebutted, talked against, or shown to be invalid or incorrect, then you have NO validity in engaging in uncivil character assassination by hurling falsehoods or even personal insults. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. This newsgroup was NOT created to "like Michael Coslo" or to discuss various forms of comestible fish or meat. If you cannot stand the heat of debate or strong discussion, this newsgroup is NOT for you. So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it. Yet you engage in uncivil character assassination, being the hypocrite to your statement of saying "no point to it." Obviously you HAVE a "point." That is to personally insult those who disagree with you, such as saying "I hate hams!" I do not. Disagreement with you or anyone else on amateur radio policy is NOT "hating hams." Disagreement with certain policies expressed by the ARRL is NOT "hating hams." You seem to forget (conveniently) that I've been IN radio and electronics for a long time, first as a hobbyist, then as a radio operator and maintainer in the United States military. That military experience was enlightening and interesting enough to me to change my working career goal from industrial illustration to electronics engineering. That became my career and I've retired from regular hours at that. Radio and electronics hobby interests continue with me still, begun in 1947 and still with me 58 years later. Not having as much exposure to other forms of radio communication, certainly not for as long as I, you consider "radio" as being ONLY that which you are familiar with: Amateur radio, CB, cellular telephony. RADIO is far larger than that. Amateur radio is a small subset of the larger world of ALL radio communication. Radio amateurs can benefit by learning more about other forms of radio communication since all the physical principles are the same. You get bogged down on expressing your views almost entirely from the standards and practices of amateur radio as you know it. That is short-sighted and detrimental to overall policy - the adminstrative regulations imposed by authority of government law. At present, in terms of amateur radio policy, there is only ONE MAJOR topic before the Federal Communications Commission: NPRM 05-143 on the elimination or retention of the morse code test. Elimination of the morse code test threatens the traditional, mind-conditioned "soul" of many radio amateurs. Elimination of the code test will prove to be of much larger impact on the future of United States amateur radio than did the "restructuring" of mid-2000. That impact will be far longer than dozens of future hurricane disasters, far more reaching than some creation of "classes" of licenses that give status and prestige to certain radio amateurs. It spells "the end of ham radio" to some who are unable to change, unable to accept anything but their own comfortable fantasy of the "amateur community." That traditionalists refuse to recognize change is not my problem, not a requirement that I toady to those self-professed "experts of radio" by giving gratuitous praise on their mighty self- stated accomplishments. CHANGE has happened to ALL OTHER radio services. No God has divined that amateur radio refuse to change nor has the Divine Being blessed all those of "higher" classes wisdom and judgement because they've met older artificial standards imposed by older amateurs. In my career work I've seen tremendous change in as many forms of electronics and radio as I've been fortunate to experience (a great deal many). Nowhere have I experienced as hidebound and stubborn refusal of so many to accept change in amateur radio...and to blatantly insult the person of those seeking change, seeking modernization. Some in amateur radio seem to be the living embodiment of ultra-uber- conservatism. For an avocational activity that is NOT vital to the nation. Amateur radio is basically a hobby, a personal activity involving radio, a fun recreation but one that requires federal regulation due to the physical nature of electromagnetic radiation. If you think that amateur radio is "more" than that, you are mistaken and are living in an idealized but fantasy concept of an avocational pursuit. Not my problem. It is yours. It is Jeswald's. It is all those who think they "own" amateur radio as it is now. I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that. I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue, more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue. If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be, s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the theory easier). Why put my name in quotes? Plug it into the FCC database and it will come back with N3KIP, and show you that I am an Extra. Do you think I'm someone else? I Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. |
wrote in message ups.com... From: Mike Coslo on Sat 17 Sep 2005 14:12 Will somebody please inform Lennie that his flatulence has once again caused his head to become swollen? One must grudgingly hand it to Lennie, however. He is one of the better Trolls in this group despite the fact that his lengthy commentaries oft go ignored. Sorry, Lennie, but your "contributions" to this group are, for the most part, passed over and ignored, a blow to your ego for sure. Now, about that flatulence problem, Lennie.... |
Lardass Lloyd Davies whined: wrote in message ups.com... From: Mike Coslo on Sat 17 Sep 2005 14:12 Will somebody Aww, what's the matter Lardass, did he use words you didn't understand? Sorry, Lennie, but your "contributions" to this group are, for the most part, passed over and ignored, a blow to your ego for sure. At least his contributions are further up the scale than yours, Porky! Now, about that flatulence problem, Lennie.... Yes, Davies will be right there at your asshole, sniffing. |
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:19
" wrote in From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am The only point where I differ is that I'm personally convinced that abolition of the Morse test would have been carried in the ITU in 1993 if it could only have got to the floor. Those who delayed it did so precisely because they knew that. That's a typical tactic, found at any large conclave/conference. The ITU is one country one vote, so the US is no more influential there than Monaco or Luxembourg. Only when it comes to the VOTE ITSELF. It's fairly obvious that the larger-population countries have larger delegates (and the 'guests' who are not supposed to have any voting power). With more people in a delegation, the more people there are to meet with other delegations away from the assembly and do one-on-one salesmanship for "their side." Then you have the many months prior to a WRC where the delegates have been largely identified on the ITU listings (plus their hotels/lodgings per delegation identified) so that "salesmanship" can be applied. The major "salesmanship" effort is on OTHER radio matters, of course, and - contrary to specific-interest-on-ham-radio groups - is of a greater international importance in radio regulations. The IARU as a collective body is larger than the ARRL and their opinion-influence on the voting delegates is stronger than the ARRL's influence. When the IARU came out against amateur radio licensing code testing a year prior to WRC-03, that sent a "message" (in effect) to other administrations' delegates, a "set-up" for the future voting. The IARU had not yet been of a consensus on S25 modernization the decade before WRC-03. One problem of American radio amateurs is that they do NOT, as a general rule, look any further than American ham radio magazines for "news." While the ITU has a number of easily- downloadable files on regulatory information, most of it is available only to "members" on a subscription basis (members would be "recognized" administration delegations or delegates). They don't much bother with the FCC freely-available information even though the FCC is their government's radio regulatory agency. News that does get down to the individual-licensee level is thus rather "filtered" by intermediate parties. That makes it very easy for them to NOT spend time looking for news elsewhere and they get to play with their radios longer. :-) It's also a ripe area for any group to do influence-control on many without them realizing what is happening. |
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat 17 Sep 2005 22:29
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in No "Alun L. Palmer" Lennie the loser is transfixed on the anti-CW testing campaign. He can not carry on a discussion that has NOTHING to do with CW or testing without out bringing it into the discussion. Get it now? Why put my name in quotes? Plug it into the FCC database and it will come back with N3KIP, and show you that I am an Extra. Do you think I'm someone else? Jeswald wants all to be identified by their "tribal name" (the callsign in a ham radio group). When the "tribe" gathers, all must stay within the "tribal rules." :-) I[f] Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. "Transfixed?" No. Just terribly, terribly PERSISTENT. :-) Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. Radiotelegraphy was the very first - and ONLY possible way - to communicate by radio. That was a mere 109 years ago, before all of electronics had rather revolutionized our society, before the vacuum tube was invented, well before the transistor was invented. Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. [the largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control, not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding] Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of antiquity. The "necessity" of testing for morse code cognition to operate any radio transmitter at 30 MHz or below is an old artificiality of the mind, abandoned by all other radio services, technically invalid, kept alive only by the egos and fantasies and conditioned thinking of those needing something, some ability to be "better than average." It is out of date, out of time, out of steam, and out to lunch. Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF, microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF, VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics since 1947, something on-going. I don't really NEED an amateur license to fulfill my Life's Ambition. But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Maybe I "should" get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-) dit dit |
Dee Flint wrote:
From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. His behavior here sure indicates that, but I think it's really much simpler. Len just likes to argue online. So he writes all kinds of stuff full of insults, wisecracks, put-downs, errors, and other nonsense in an attempt to get an argument going. Of course an argument requires a disagreement, so he'll do everything he can to be disagreeable. In fact, he takes any disagreement with his views as a personal insult. The worst thing you can do is to prove him factually wrong about something, or observe how predictable his behavior here is. His behavior here can be predicted with very high accuracy by reference to the profile I have posted. Watch - you'll see examples of it. Of course pointing that out is considered "character assassination" by him. He's even gone so far as to try to get such arguments going in ECFS, by posting the same sort of errors there as he posts here. The question is: why waste time on him, knowing his behavior? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. I'm afraid you're mistaken about Len wanting a license, Alun. If Len really wanted a ham license, he could have had a Technician at any time since February 1991 with no code test at all. If Len really wanted a ham license other than Technician, he could have gotten any class of license with only a 5 wpm code test at any time since 1990. From 1990 to 2000 he would have needed a waiver, but after 2000 he would have needed no waiver at all. Len posted here more than once that he "knew Morse", having allegedly learned it in the mid 1950s up to about 8 wpm. But then, according to his post, he gave up and went on to other things. Back on January 19, 2000, Len said he was "going for Extra right out of the box" but hasn't gotten a license in the 5 years and 8 months since. That was the *only* time I ever saw him say he was going to get an amateur radio license. If the code test is totally removed, Len *may* get a license. But don't count on it. Ask yourself why someone who wanted a ham license, and who allegedly knew enough to pass the tests, would not go for one. Particularly over the course of more than 15 years. I think Len has everything he wants from ham radio right here on rrap. No license, no propagation troubles, no station or antenna to assemble, no radio skills needed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in link.net: No "Alun L. Palmer" Lennie the loser is transfixed on the anti-CW testing campaign. He can not carry on a discussion that has NOTHING to do with CW or testing without out bringing it into the discussion. Get it now? Dan/W4NTI "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... " wrote in ups.com: From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser. plonk Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting boring As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it? Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value Boring Dan Boring He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs. All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. Poor baby. "Sore loser-ism" displayed for all to see. :-) The whines have been pressed from grapes of morsemen's wrath! I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. "Non sequitur." [from the Latin] Tsk, tsk, tsk. Coslo wishes to be "correct" in any discussion or argument? Not possible in an OPEN forum when his discussions and arguments are NOT winning/correct/valid or on the subject of amateur radio. Note: There exist OTHER forums for discussion of religion and general moral-ethical behavior. Those do not involve amateur radio per se, though, so it is best NOT to whine and carry on about losing discussions and arguments by spouting "you hate hams!" Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. Incorrect. By so stating an incorrect falsehood, you create, in effect, a mild sort of character assassination which is not at all civil or mannerly. If you cannot stand to have your statements rebutted, talked against, or shown to be invalid or incorrect, then you have NO validity in engaging in uncivil character assassination by hurling falsehoods or even personal insults. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. This newsgroup was NOT created to "like Michael Coslo" or to discuss various forms of comestible fish or meat. If you cannot stand the heat of debate or strong discussion, this newsgroup is NOT for you. So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it. Yet you engage in uncivil character assassination, being the hypocrite to your statement of saying "no point to it." Obviously you HAVE a "point." That is to personally insult those who disagree with you, such as saying "I hate hams!" I do not. Disagreement with you or anyone else on amateur radio policy is NOT "hating hams." Disagreement with certain policies expressed by the ARRL is NOT "hating hams." You seem to forget (conveniently) that I've been IN radio and electronics for a long time, first as a hobbyist, then as a radio operator and maintainer in the United States military. That military experience was enlightening and interesting enough to me to change my working career goal from industrial illustration to electronics engineering. That became my career and I've retired from regular hours at that. Radio and electronics hobby interests continue with me still, begun in 1947 and still with me 58 years later. Not having as much exposure to other forms of radio communication, certainly not for as long as I, you consider "radio" as being ONLY that which you are familiar with: Amateur radio, CB, cellular telephony. RADIO is far larger than that. Amateur radio is a small subset of the larger world of ALL radio communication. Radio amateurs can benefit by learning more about other forms of radio communication since all the physical principles are the same. You get bogged down on expressing your views almost entirely from the standards and practices of amateur radio as you know it. That is short-sighted and detrimental to overall policy - the adminstrative regulations imposed by authority of government law. At present, in terms of amateur radio policy, there is only ONE MAJOR topic before the Federal Communications Commission: NPRM 05-143 on the elimination or retention of the morse code test. Elimination of the morse code test threatens the traditional, mind-conditioned "soul" of many radio amateurs. Elimination of the code test will prove to be of much larger impact on the future of United States amateur radio than did the "restructuring" of mid-2000. That impact will be far longer than dozens of future hurricane disasters, far more reaching than some creation of "classes" of licenses that give status and prestige to certain radio amateurs. It spells "the end of ham radio" to some who are unable to change, unable to accept anything but their own comfortable fantasy of the "amateur community." That traditionalists refuse to recognize change is not my problem, not a requirement that I toady to those self-professed "experts of radio" by giving gratuitous praise on their mighty self- stated accomplishments. CHANGE has happened to ALL OTHER radio services. No God has divined that amateur radio refuse to change nor has the Divine Being blessed all those of "higher" classes wisdom and judgement because they've met older artificial standards imposed by older amateurs. In my career work I've seen tremendous change in as many forms of electronics and radio as I've been fortunate to experience (a great deal many). Nowhere have I experienced as hidebound and stubborn refusal of so many to accept change in amateur radio...and to blatantly insult the person of those seeking change, seeking modernization. Some in amateur radio seem to be the living embodiment of ultra-uber- conservatism. For an avocational activity that is NOT vital to the nation. Amateur radio is basically a hobby, a personal activity involving radio, a fun recreation but one that requires federal regulation due to the physical nature of electromagnetic radiation. If you think that amateur radio is "more" than that, you are mistaken and are living in an idealized but fantasy concept of an avocational pursuit. Not my problem. It is yours. It is Jeswald's. It is all those who think they "own" amateur radio as it is now. I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that. I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue, more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue. If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be, s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the theory easier). Why put my name in quotes? Plug it into the FCC database and it will come back with N3KIP, and show you that I am an Extra. Do you think I'm someone else? I Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. With all the Unknown Flying Objects it is hard to tell who is real and not Alun. Of course Lennie wants a ham license. But he has now blustered and BSed his way into a corner and can't find a way out. Dan/W4NTI |
See what I mean AGAIN? He simply can't keep on a subject, always brings
it back around to CW, or in his case anti CW. And most always brings in his so-called military exploits. What a boring jerk he is. Dan/W4NTI wrote in message oups.com... From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat 17 Sep 2005 22:29 "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in No "Alun L. Palmer" Lennie the loser is transfixed on the anti-CW testing campaign. He can not carry on a discussion that has NOTHING to do with CW or testing without out bringing it into the discussion. Get it now? Why put my name in quotes? Plug it into the FCC database and it will come back with N3KIP, and show you that I am an Extra. Do you think I'm someone else? Jeswald wants all to be identified by their "tribal name" (the callsign in a ham radio group). When the "tribe" gathers, all must stay within the "tribal rules." :-) I[f] Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. "Transfixed?" No. Just terribly, terribly PERSISTENT. :-) Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. Radiotelegraphy was the very first - and ONLY possible way - to communicate by radio. That was a mere 109 years ago, before all of electronics had rather revolutionized our society, before the vacuum tube was invented, well before the transistor was invented. Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. [the largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control, not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding] Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of antiquity. The "necessity" of testing for morse code cognition to operate any radio transmitter at 30 MHz or below is an old artificiality of the mind, abandoned by all other radio services, technically invalid, kept alive only by the egos and fantasies and conditioned thinking of those needing something, some ability to be "better than average." It is out of date, out of time, out of steam, and out to lunch. Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF, microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF, VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics since 1947, something on-going. I don't really NEED an amateur license to fulfill my Life's Ambition. But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Maybe I "should" get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-) dit dit |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Has anyone noticed that those that accuse are usually guilty of the same sort of offense? Yaknow Dan, I find it interesting that when I refer to people as hating hams, it is an apparently a big personal insult, and yet when they call the rest of us any name they please, I guess that is some sort of joke or something? Ha ha 8^) - mike KB3EIA - Just consider the source Mike. Dan/W4NTI |
|
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. His behavior here sure indicates that, but I think it's really much simpler. Len just likes to argue online. So he writes all kinds of stuff full of insults, wisecracks, put-downs, errors, and other nonsense in an attempt to get an argument going. Of course an argument requires a disagreement, so he'll do everything he can to be disagreeable. In fact, he takes any disagreement with his views as a personal insult. The worst thing you can do is to prove him factually wrong about something, or observe how predictable his behavior here is. His behavior here can be predicted with very high accuracy by reference to the profile I have posted. Watch - you'll see examples of it. Of course pointing that out is considered "character assassination" by him. He's even gone so far as to try to get such arguments going in ECFS, by posting the same sort of errors there as he posts here. The question is: why waste time on him, knowing his behavior? 73 de Jim, N2EY I don't as I killfiled him quite some time ago so as to not get sucked into one of those long running arguments. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you. Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like "fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It bothers you. I can live with your being bothered. right that is of course why the Views of the advocates of Morse Code are being ignored by the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many of the nations on the planet ...[the largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control, not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding] Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of antiquity. Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a campaign. again your ability to understand english shows it sad state Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF, microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF, VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics since 1947, something on-going. Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket. again with tangential matter I don't really NEED an amateur license to fulfill my Life's Ambition. There you go. Indeed Neither do I my Life Ambition are not based on a requirement for a Ham License But then you don't get the point or is it simplier than that? just a case of Binary thinking Ham radio is his lifes ambition so that means he will not pursue it But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become forgetful? No a simple turth many of the Licensees esp arround DO indeed demand such before allowing comment Maybe I "should" get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-) It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice lunch and catch a nap, OT. what is the hurry? Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you. Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like "fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It bothers you. I can live with your being bothered. right that is of course why the Views of the advocates of Morse Code are being ignored by the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many of the nations on the planet The views are being ignored? That's preposterous. Morse code isn't being done away with. ...[the largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control, not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding] Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of antiquity. Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a campaign. again your ability to understand english shows it sad state It would probably be better if you left it to others to critique another's use or understanding of the language. Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF, microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF, VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics since 1947, something on-going. Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket. again with tangential matter Did you find anything in my statement to be unfactual? What was the purpose for Len's outlining his "PROFESSIONAL" experience yet again? Was his material tangential? I don't really NEED an amateur license to fulfill my Life's Ambition. There you go. Indeed Neither do I my Life Ambition are not based on a requirement for a Ham License What is your singular Life Ambition, Colonel? I've had many ambitions in my life. I achieved most of them. Did you obtain an amateur radio license? You must have had an ambition to do so. Has Len stated an ambition to obtain an amateur radio license? Has he done so? But then you don't get the point or is it simplier than that? just a case of Binary thinking Ham radio is his lifes ambition so that means he will not pursue it Sure, I get the point--the fable of the fox and the grapes. Our wily old fox can't reach the grapes, so he tells others that the grapes are probably sour. Len has stated at various times that he has had a decades-long interest in amateur radio *and* that he has no interest in obtaining an amateur radio license. He is interested enough to post here for nearly ten years. One could easily gather that he has enough interest in amateur radio for that to take place. But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become forgetful? No a simple turth many of the Licensees esp arround DO indeed demand such before allowing comment Len has been making comments here for nearly a decade. You are confusing "allowing comment" with "giving credence to views" and that's the "turth". Maybe I "should" get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-) It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice lunch and catch a nap, OT. what is the hurry? Actuarial tables. Dave K8MN |
hmm trying again since my last reply is now 100 hours awol
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you. Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like "fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It bothers you. I can live with your being bothered. Gee Alive and Well that is why the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many nations have have abandoned the notion it is vital. Even the ARRL has admitted (in practical terms) that Morse Code isn't vital ...[the largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control, not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding] Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of antiquity. Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a campaign. your understanding of English isn't very good as you miss the point... again Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF, microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF, VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics since 1947, something on-going. Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket. I don't really NEED an amateur license to fulfill my Life's Ambition. There you go. Indeed and by that remark would could take it that YOUR Lifes ambition does require one. My Life's ambition does not require a Ham License either, but to you it seems that only something is Vital or useless But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become forgetful? Niether, I guess you have not been reading the Newgroups Maybe I "should" get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-) It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice lunch and catch a nap, OT. Such a hurry Dave K8MN |
|
From: on Sep 18, 2:02 pm
Alun L. Palmer wrote: Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. I'm afraid you're mistaken about Len wanting a license, Alun. Why are you afraid? Fear is a negative attribute. If Len really wanted a ham license, he could have had a Technician at any time since February 1991 with no code test at all. Actually, I could have gone to the Food and Drug Adminstration for a REAL ham license. By definition, "ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-) If Len really wanted a ham license other than Technician, he could have gotten any class of license with only a 5 wpm code test at any time since 1990. From 1990 to 2000 he would have needed a waiver, but after 2000 he would have needed no waiver at all. So could everyone at the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC *makes* the regulations covering amateur radio. Really. [it's in the Communications Act of 1934] But, the Act does not require staff or Commissioners to hold ANY radio licenses of their own! Unbelievable but true! Len posted here more than once that he "knew Morse", having allegedly learned it in the mid 1950s up to about 8 wpm. But then, according to his post, he gave up and went on to other things. Tsk, you don't seem to believe everything you read...taking some posts as "factual" while making other posts very Jesuit in "once declared, it is a life goal!" :-) Back on January 19, 2000, Len said he was "going for Extra right out of the box" but hasn't gotten a license in the 5 years and 8 months since. That was the *only* time I ever saw him say he was going to get an amateur radio license. Jimmie, BEFORE then I stated that my goal was to just eliminate the code test from federal regulations. [you glossed over that, preferring to highlight some artificial "life goal promises"] I got a First 'Phone (Commercial) license 49 years ago, never took a vow or promised to get one, just did it. Should I have "posted bans" on that? [I didn't] I once took and oath to defend the Constitution of the United States "...with my life if need be..." way back 53 years ago in Chicago. I didn't have to DO that but I was ready. Have you done anything like that, Jimmie? I once took a vow, in front of many witnesses, to be a true and faithful husband to my wife (who repeated the vow to me), even had that officially recorded with authorities. I mean to KEEP that vow/promise as long as we shall live. Have you done anything like that, Jimmie? Do you consider a throwaway remark I made about a HOBBY to be MORE SERIOUS than the two oaths/vows I mentioned? Apparantly so! If the code test is totally removed, Len *may* get a license. But don't count on it. I don't see anyone at the FCC "going for a ham license" in order to *regulate* ham radio. Why don't you go complain to THEM? Gosh, for all of 71 years (!) the FCC has had the unmitigated GALL to think they coould regulate and ENFORCE amateur radio in the USA *without* requiring any staff or Commissioner to hold an amateur radio license grant! :-) Ask yourself why someone who wanted a ham license, and who allegedly knew enough to pass the tests, would not go for one. Particularly over the course of more than 15 years. ERROR! You are OFF by 40 years Jimmie. :-) [I have mention of that in my high school annual/yearbook...:-)] [it's been printed with real ink on real paper] I think Len has everything he wants from ham radio right here on rrap. No license, no propagation troubles, no station or antenna to assemble, no radio skills needed. I think Jimmie has everything he wants from ham radio right here in newsgroups...no propagation "troubles," no station or antenna to assemble, no radio skills needed to sit around and negatively criticize each and every person who doesn't share his opinions. That's utterly predictable. :-) |
From: on Sep 18, 1:16 pm
Dee Flint wrote: From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. [Wow! Kinda over-extended a bit aincha? :-) ] His behavior here sure indicates that, but I think it's really much simpler. It is. I am simply against morse code testing for a license. Said that years ago, still say that today. Len just likes to argue online. So he writes all kinds of stuff full of insults, wisecracks, put-downs, errors, and other nonsense in an attempt to get an argument going. Of course an argument requires a disagreement, so he'll do everything he can to be disagreeable. Definition: "Disagreeable" = anyone against code testing; "Disagreeable" = anyone not loving, honoring, obeying the heart and soul of amateur radio that is morse code; "Disagreeable" = anyone not agreeing with Jimmie, your one true voice of the "amateur community." :-) In fact, he takes any disagreement with his views as a personal insult. Not really. :-) But, if all YOU can talk about is the PERSONALITIES of the communicators here, then stating so can also be a "disagreement." :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk...Jimmie takes any disagreement with his opinions as an "insult" (true voices of the amateur community get like that) and starts in on "profiling" and "his comments are all in 'error' when others aren't "nice" to him. The worst thing you can do is to prove him factually wrong about something, or observe how predictable his behavior here is. Tsk tsk tsk...Jimmie be even more predictable, no "profile" necessary. See "disagreement" definitions preceding. His behavior here can be predicted with very high accuracy by reference to the profile I have posted. Watch - you'll see examples of it. Of course pointing that out is considered "character assassination" by him. There you have it! [character assassination in "profiling"] He's even gone so far as to try to get such arguments going in ECFS, by posting the same sort of errors there as he posts here. The ECFS is open to everyone for Comments until 31 October and 14 November on WT Docket 05-235. You can even Comment on WT Docket 98-143 and have it "published" except that it won't matter; R&O 99-412 pretty much nulled those out. Still, if you insist, as some have up to June, 2005, you can "comment" and "correct those 'errors'" all you want. Jimmie is very judgemental on what constitutes an "error." In Jimmie's world, anyone not in agreement with him is "in error." Quod erat demonstrandum. The question is: why waste time on him, knowing his behavior? Because YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELF! :-) That's utterly PREDICTABLE! :-) Been repeated here over and over and over and over again! :-) Now get busy with the FCC, Jimmie, MAKE them all get amateur radio licenses so they can "qualify" to regulate, mitigate, and enforce United States amateur radio! If they don't, then the FCC is "in error" and is "subject to profiling" by yourself! Or...just roll with it. Show your superiority. Jeswald can't roll with it but has to get into personal insult thingy. Heil can't roll with it but has to get into the personal insult mode. Others, like Dudly the Imposter and the anony-mousies are truly into personal insult mode and can't talk on subjects. The problem you have is that the SUBJECTS are taken too subjectively, you believe in them too strongly on a personal level to be objective, cannot separate the two. You just can't invalidate VALID arguments against your personal views without coming unglued and obsessively commenting on personalities. |
From: Dave Heil on Sep 18, 9:40 pm
wrote: Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you. Did I "promise" that in some kind of "oath" or "vow?" Try to refrain from taking text out of context, your emminent Lardship. YOU do NOT "speak" for the entirety of the "amateur community." YOU are NOT in the "leadership." [despite implications to the contrary] Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. The fantasy seems to be yours alone. No. Wrong. Error. What I wrote is documented history. You like to use terms like "fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse code. Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. By ARRL poll morse code mode is only SECOND in popularity on ham HF bands. The argument about NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code USE, it is about the TEST for morse code cognition. I can live with your being bothered. Wrong. Error. You are obsessed with "getting the last word" with anyone who disagrees with you...on morse code testing or anything else. YOU are very much BOTHERED. You will try to assassinate the character of anyone writing against your sacred viewpoints...and have, repeatedly. Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for an amateur radio license. I've never said it should. Really! :-) Does AMATEUR radio operate by "different" physical principles than all other radio services? Yes? No? Explain that. Explain how morse code testing shows "dedication and commitment to the amateur community" in lieu of written test elements. Is amateur radio "all about morse code?" NPRM 05-143, currently under Comment period under WT Docket 05-235, is solely about the elimination or retention of morse code TESTING in FCC regulations governing United States amateur radio. Instead of concentrating so much on character assassination of all who disagree with you, explain to the FCC the reasons, valid reasons, why the FCC should retain test element 1 in regulations. But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become forgetful? No "distortion." Actual fact. The first one is found on the ECFS for WT Docket 98-143, dated 25 January 1999, filed by Dudly under the surname "Robeson." [it's not in Google archives but in the FCC archives, still viewable] You have repeatedly said that I should not be commenting at all on the subject of amateur radio as a "non participant." In case you've forgotten (already), the staff and Commissioners are "non participants" in amateur radio yet the FCC very much regulates, mitigates, and enforces United States amateur radio! You have NEGLECTED all those others - IN Google archives - who have demanded that I be a licensed radio amateur in order to talk anything about it. It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so for nearly the past six years. Not at all. I dismissed the idea of getting a personal amateur radio license back in the 1960s for many and varied reasons. I've stated those. That you refuse to believe them is not my concern. Have a nice lunch and catch a nap, OT. I had a "working lunch" but no "nap" needed. I would suggest you see a real medical doctor about the first signs of Alzheimer's Disease. You have become forgetful and are unable to concentrate. Alzheimer's can manifest itself at any age past 40...and you DO easily qualify for that, old-timer. Serious stuff...and you are showing those first symptoms already. |
From: Dee Flint on Sep 17, 5:07 pm
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and anyone younger than he is. tsk, Tsk, TSK! Oh, my, what a STRONG bit of character assassination! Have you been taking testosterone, Dee? :-) I "hate women?!?" No, on the contrary, I MARRIED one. My high school sweetheart, in fact. A number of our classmates observed that we truly LIKE each other at our 50th high school reunion. I "hate children?!?" No. I dislkike CHILDISH, bitter, control- freaks who think they can personally insult anyone they care to. The PCTA in here seem to qualify for that trait. "Children" who can't get along with anyone not sharing their beloved ideas. They never grew up, the poor dears. I "hate anyone younger than myself?!?" Absurd! Following Ben Franklin's observation, the older I get, the more WOMEN there are to LIKE! :-) I "hate ham radio?!?" Another absurdity. I dislike the morse code test for any radio operator license and endeavor to disprove its necessity at many opportunities. Amateur radio is, de facto, an enjoyable HOBBY, an avocation (not an occupation of making money) done for personal pleasure. Because of the nature of the physics of electromagnetic wave propagation it must be regulated by a government agency created to regulate, mitigate interference, and enforce it regulations. In the USA that is the FCC. Why would anyone "hate" it? Do you think that morse code is the end-all, be-all of amateur radio? If you do, I'd say you "hate" talking in a normal voice, "hate" communicating by data/teleprinter, "hate" sending any form of television over amateur radio, "hate" everything but morse code communications...in amateur radio or any other radio service. That's a lot of HATE, Dee. Be careful it doesn't fester and make you outraged enough to write some paraphrased W. C. Fields remarks. :-) ...or would you rather be in Philadelphia? :-) |
http://tinyurl.com/drbfk 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Homepage: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb Member: ARRL http://www.arrl.org SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc VWOA http://www.vwoa.org A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org MWA http://www.w0aa.org TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org FISTS http://www.fists.org LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm NCI http://www.nocode.org |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com