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
ups.com...
From: Mike Coslo on Sat 17 Sep 2005 14:12



Poison pen Len outdoes himself once again.

plonk

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

wrote:
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.

The ARRL began the IARU and the IARU permanent headquarters is at
Newington. Most IARU member societies are very, very small. They don't
have many members and they don't have much money. The IARU HQ
frequently donates money so that third world delegates may attend.
In the past, one of these was Cassandra Davies 9L1YL, President of SLARS
(Sierra Leone Amateur Radio Society), also a licensing official at SLET,
the Sierra Leonian PTT. Many SLARS members were non-Sierra Leonian.
Average meeting attendance was between fifteen to twenty radio amateurs.

In Botswana, no natives of Botswana were BARS members. There were no
indigenous radio amateurs in Botswana despite yearly BARS classes in
theory, regs and morse. Most licensees were German, British, Indian,
South African or American resident citizens.

Guinea-Bissau had no resident radio amateurs much of the time. During
my two years in Bissau, there was a Swedish op, Bengt Lundgren J52BLU in
country for about four months. There was a DXpedition to the Bijagos
Islands by an Italian group which lasted a matter of days. For the
balance of my tour, I was the only licensed radio amateur in the country.

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.

It wasn't much of a message for most African countries delegates.

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."

You state that as a fact. It can only be an assumption on your part.
The internet has made it very easy for radio amateurs to find other
sources 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).

So, Joe Average Ham wouldn't be likely to subscribe in order to obtain
the material.

They don't much bother with the FCC freely-available information
even though the FCC is their government's radio regulatory
agency.

There's another assumption on your part.

News that does get down to the individual-licensee
level is thus rather "filtered" by intermediate parties.

Filtered how, Len? Do you mean that only information of interest to
radio amateurs is published, as a rule, in amateur radio magazines? Why
would it be otherwise?

That
makes it very easy for them to NOT spend time looking for news
elsewhere and they get to play with their radios longer. :-)

Do commercial ops and governmental ops have the same problem? Do they
waste time and isn't it easy for them to cut down on the time they have
to play with their radios? :-)

It's also a ripe area for any group to do influence-control on
many without them realizing what is happening.

I had a feeling that we'd get down to your intimating that there's some
conspiracy to keep radio amateurs in the dark.

Dave K8MN