|
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 04:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com