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. |
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. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com