wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.

That's a very good thing!

Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code!

But not by direct radio contact.

And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len.

Why do you live in the past?

Tsk, I don't.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time. Are you the
only one allowed to do that?

I'm not dismissing a great big hobby area involving all of electronics.
I'm stating quite accurately that you aren't involved in amateur radio.

So, in your mind electronics does NOT equate with "radio?"

The two are not the same.

It does not equate with "amateur radio?"

No, they don't.

"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

And much more.

Yep, when something is simple enough, many folks will opt for it rather
than attempting that which is more difficult. Many never go beyond the
easiest license despite the limited privileges it offers.

Such as long-time amateur radiotelegraphers who've never
ventured behind the front panels of their radios in order
to understand how they worked. :-)

Who would they be, Len?

Your clause doesn't address limited privileges. :-)

I didn't have any "clause." I asked a question. Pay attention.

What question?

Yes, I am familiar
with those. Their "radio skill" never goes beyond their
key, their ears, or the "official" jargon they've picked
up from older days, those used by older "radio experts."

Do you know any radio telephonists who've never ventured beyond the
front panels of their equipment? Does their skill extend beyond their
microphones? Have they picked up any "official" jargon from older days?
Perhaps your rant was intended only as a slam against anyone who is both
a telegrapher and a radio amateur.

I was addressing - specifically - who I addressed, not
"radio telephonists." You are attempting to misdirect.
The word you should have used is 'radiotelephony.'

Yet you know they exist.

NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Those
cover "radio theory" (actually electronics in general since
there are no exclusive-to-amateur-radio circuits) and
Commission regulations. While some questions pertain to
"radio operating," there is no actual, hands-on, demonstratable
ability to OPERATE any radio, let alone amateur radio. Some in
here as well as in commentary on the NPRM misuse "operating"
to refer almost exclusively to RADIOTELEGRAPHY.

Who would they be, Len?

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

I charge that based on MY life
experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions
of rather elementary level on radio theory.

Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len.

I was answering
questions, giving CORRECT answers, as a NON-amateur but also
as a very professional radio-knowledgeable person. All too
many of those questions from radio amateurs chronologically
older than I was were so simplistic, so indicative of a basic
understanding of radio and propagation principles that I
would lump them as less than Novice class amateurs.

By what standard?

How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did
they get a look at a 1957 Extra test?

I could
care less that they might be able to do 40 WPM radiotelegraphy
with "perfect copy" any time. I could care less if they had
earned every possible "radiosport" contest as amateurs. They
were still deficient in a basic understanding of radio theory,
deficient at an elementary level. In a radio activity that
grants BOTH an operator and station license, it showed me
that they couldn't possibly meet the technical regulations
of amateur radio to match their lofty rank-status-privileges
they were granted.

Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len.

You see, amateur radio is mainly about operating radios. Sure, some
technical knowledge is needed, and some of us do things like design
and build our own amateur radio stations (something you've never
done, btw.) But the license isn't for building - it's for operating.

Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of
operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment. Technical stuff
is just a means to that end.

You just don't seem to understand that.

Then again, you aren't likely to know. You aren't a ham and you aren't
an ARRL member.

I'm FAR LESS likely to be an ARRL/NAAR member than a licensed
radio amateur...unless they do some drastic changes to their
public policy.

It's very unlikely you'll ever be either, Len.

The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

The percentages of membership have never become greater than
a quarter of all licensees.

Not true, Len.

btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

Your blatant problem is some weird self-righteous elitism
wherein you claim that no one licensed can "know" anything
about amateur radio.

Where is that claimed?


And? What percentage of radio amateurs filed? What percentage of the
general public filed?

Ask Joe Speroni. Rightsell calls him the "unofficial
statistician of amateur radio." What did Speroni do about
that "English department" filing wherein the English
teacher stated outright she had NO activity in amateur
radio and was NOT going to get an amateur license. Speroni
counted her for "support" of his "statistics."

That's because she was in support of continued Morse Code testing.

You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst
almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

What of all
those law students filing, 18 in all. None of them are
licensees and none say they are going to get a license.

You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

You love Rightsell, don't you? You get on my case because
I filed a Reply to Comments of his "two-year-olds" filing.

Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.



You aren't wrapped very tight.

True, I am (at time of writing) sitting in shirtsleeves,
the office window open, temperature gauge at the corner
of the radio clock displaying 71.3 degrees F.

"Profiles" work two ways, indeed in many ways. Yours
can, and has been done (in part) several times.

Was that the one you plagiarized from Jim's work?

PARODY is perfectly acceptible.

You're spelling isn't.

Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!

Who wrote that?

Morse code is alive but unwell...

Actually it's quite well.

See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

One can listen OUTSIDE the amateur radio bands and NOT hear
much radiotelegraphy.

An amateur license permits the licensee to operate INSIDE the
amateur bands, not OUTSIDE.

Hardly a beep to be heard...still lots
of SSB and AM voice, data (TORs mostly), international
broadcasting, standard time signals. Not much morse code.

Why is that important to what happens inside the amateur bands?

wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.

That's a very good thing!

....and it is the only legal option available to Len at the moment.

Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code!

But not by direct radio contact.

He doesn't have to be "bothered" with direct radio contact.

And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len.

Anybody with enough money to pay his monthly ISP or telephone bill can
get in on that action.

Why do you live in the past?
Tsk, I don't.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time. Are you the
only one allowed to do that?

That's the way it works with Len. He does it but neither you nor I
should do it.

I'm not dismissing a great big hobby area involving all of electronics.
I'm stating quite accurately that you aren't involved in amateur radio.
So, in your mind electronics does NOT equate with "radio?"

The two are not the same.

It does not equate with "amateur radio?"

No, they don't.

"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Thanks for clearing that up for Len. I think he may have been confused.

Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

And much more.

Yep, when something is simple enough, many folks will opt for it rather
than attempting that which is more difficult. Many never go beyond the
easiest license despite the limited privileges it offers.

Such as long-time amateur radiotelegraphers who've never
ventured behind the front panels of their radios in order
to understand how they worked. :-)

Who would they be, Len?

Why, *any* long-time amateur radiotelegraphers, Jim. It doesn't apply
to radiotelephonists.

Your clause doesn't address limited privileges. :-)

I didn't have any "clause." I asked a question. Pay attention.

What question?

....and what sentence?

Yes, I am familiar
with those. Their "radio skill" never goes beyond their
key, their ears, or the "official" jargon they've picked
up from older days, those used by older "radio experts."

Do you know any radio telephonists who've never ventured beyond the
front panels of their equipment? Does their skill extend beyond their
microphones? Have they picked up any "official" jargon from older days?
Perhaps your rant was intended only as a slam against anyone who is both
a telegrapher and a radio amateur.

I was addressing - specifically - who I addressed, not
"radio telephonists." You are attempting to misdirect.
The word you should have used is 'radiotelephony.'

Len was talking about radiotelegraphers. An operator who uses SSB or FM
or AM is a radiotelephonist. A radiotelegrapher uses radiotelegraphy.
A radiotelephonist uses radiotelephony. You'd think a PROFESSIONAL
writer would have figured that out.

Yet you know they exist.

Sure, he knew.

NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Those
cover "radio theory" (actually electronics in general since
there are no exclusive-to-amateur-radio circuits) and
Commission regulations. While some questions pertain to
"radio operating," there is no actual, hands-on, demonstratable
ability to OPERATE any radio, let alone amateur radio. Some in
here as well as in commentary on the NPRM misuse "operating"
to refer almost exclusively to RADIOTELEGRAPHY.

Who would they be, Len?

Len seems to pick his "facts" from thin air.

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

....nor is he necessarily factually accurate.

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

Thousands of them have much more HF radio experience than Len.

I charge that based on MY life
experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions
of rather elementary level on radio theory.

Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len.

I was answering
questions, giving CORRECT answers, as a NON-amateur but also
as a very professional radio-knowledgeable person. All too
many of those questions from radio amateurs chronologically
older than I was were so simplistic, so indicative of a basic
understanding of radio and propagation principles that I
would lump them as less than Novice class amateurs.

By what standard?

....and how do we know that Len provided CORRECT answers.

How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did
they get a look at a 1957 Extra test?

I could
care less that they might be able to do 40 WPM radiotelegraphy
with "perfect copy" any time. I could care less if they had
earned every possible "radiosport" contest as amateurs. They
were still deficient in a basic understanding of radio theory,
deficient at an elementary level. In a radio activity that
grants BOTH an operator and station license, it showed me
that they couldn't possibly meet the technical regulations
of amateur radio to match their lofty rank-status-privileges
they were granted.

Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len.

You see, amateur radio is mainly about operating radios. Sure, some
technical knowledge is needed, and some of us do things like design
and build our own amateur radio stations (something you've never
done, btw.) But the license isn't for building - it's for operating.

Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of
operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment. Technical stuff
is just a means to that end.

You just don't seem to understand that.

Then again, you aren't likely to know. You aren't a ham and you aren't
an ARRL member.

I'm FAR LESS likely to be an ARRL/NAAR member than a licensed
radio amateur...unless they do some drastic changes to their
public policy.

It's very unlikely you'll ever be either, Len.

That saves him both effort and money.

The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

The percentages of membership have never become greater than
a quarter of all licensees.

Not true, Len.

Len doesn't like to have his factual errors pointed out, Jim.

btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

But NCI is supposedly a one issue organization. I've asked Len to point
to one general interest amateur radio organization in this country which
has more than a tiny fraction of the ARRL membership.

Your blatant problem is some weird self-righteous elitism
wherein you claim that no one licensed can "know" anything
about amateur radio.

Where is that claimed?

I haver certainly never claimed that.


And? What percentage of radio amateurs filed? What percentage of the
general public filed?

Ask Joe Speroni. Rightsell calls him the "unofficial
statistician of amateur radio." What did Speroni do about
that "English department" filing wherein the English
teacher stated outright she had NO activity in amateur
radio and was NOT going to get an amateur license. Speroni
counted her for "support" of his "statistics."

That's because she was in support of continued Morse Code testing.

You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst
almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

Len was quick to point out the percentage of licensed radio amateurs who
participated in comments and replies. I asked him a simple question
about the perentage of U.S. citizens who participated and he tells me to
ask Joe Speroni. That's very peculiar.

What of all
those law students filing, 18 in all. None of them are
licensees and none say they are going to get a license.

You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

You love Rightsell, don't you? You get on my case because
I filed a Reply to Comments of his "two-year-olds" filing.

Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.

You aren't wrapped very tight.

True, I am (at time of writing) sitting in shirtsleeves,
the office window open, temperature gauge at the corner
of the radio clock displaying 71.3 degrees F.

"Profiles" work two ways, indeed in many ways. Yours
can, and has been done (in part) several times.

Was that the one you plagiarized from Jim's work?

PARODY is perfectly acceptible.

You're spelling isn't.

Shhhhh. PROFESSIONAL writers are very sensitive.

Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!

Who wrote that?

There is what is written and there is what Len thinks has been written.

Morse code is alive but unwell...

Actually it's quite well.

See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

He *knows* he'd be proven wrong, if the Icom receiver is within its
specs as manufactured and he has more than a rain gutter to attach to
its antenna port. There's enough RF floating around Los Angeles County
this weekend to lift Len's receiver off the table.

One can listen OUTSIDE the amateur radio bands and NOT hear
much radiotelegraphy.

An amateur license permits the licensee to operate INSIDE the
amateur bands, not OUTSIDE.

Hardly a beep to be heard...still lots
of SSB and AM voice, data (TORs mostly), international
broadcasting, standard time signals. Not much morse code.

Why is that important to what happens inside the amateur bands?

Len is driven by such things. He desperately needs to prove that morse
has no place in "modern" communications.

Dave K8MN

From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm


wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.

That's a very good thing!

Why? Are you morsemen so elitist you can't get along with others?


Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code!

But not by direct radio contact.

Most absolutely INCORRECT, Jim-Jim.

DIRECT from a maritime transceiver as a civilian. DIRECT from a
government radio transmitter. DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.


And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len.

Then why do you fuss with morse and standards that are over
70 years old?


Why do you live in the past?

Tsk, I don't.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

You were born before 1951? YOU talked much of it in previous post.

YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in-
the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900.
Are you 105 years old?!?

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time.

When did MY "time" begin, Jimmy? My "first radio job" in HF comms
began in 1953. I was there then, did it, came back. Never used
any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to.

Are you the only one allowed to do that?

Tsk, you are getting disturbed. Calm down, just keep on bringing
up all those tidbits of "radio history" as you need to. Be mindful
of some critics, though. Not all of those are me. :-)


"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Incorrect. It is a part of electronics, a technology discipline.


"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

INCORRECT.

Electronics is one TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE of physics.

Didn't Dexter teach you the correct way to look at
physics...like everyone else does?


Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the
world of electronics...and radio. :-)


Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

And much more.

And, of course, YOU do so much more... :-)

Have you defeated any enemies of Homeland Security with your
amateur morsemanship?

Have you saved any lives in the Gulf States with your amateur
morsemanship?



NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

Why do you consider yourself so "significant?" :-)


The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and
passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops"
of "tradition." :-)


The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Who else? :-)

YOU are NOT in the FCC.


Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

Yes, MY OPINION! :-) Do you think someone else is writing
all this? :-)

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

Why is that a factor in AMATEUR radio?

Other than your puerile little nyah-nyah, that is...


I charge that based on MY life
experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions
of rather elementary level on radio theory.

Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len.

Tsk, your definition of "polite" seems to be everyone agreeing
with you and giving your gratuitous praise for whatever you do.

shrug


How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did
they get a look at a 1957 Extra test?

Why is that important here...other than satisfying your nasty
little nyah-nyahs?


Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len.

No, sweetums, YOU disagree with me. YOU are NOT the FCC.


Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of
operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment.

INCORRECT. Modes and frequencies are specifically allocated
and given in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. NOT "all types" as you
state. [tsk, tsk] NOT "all sorts of modes" since those are
limited. NOT "all sorts of equipment" either since there are
exceptions stated in Part 97. Look those up.

Technical stuff is just a means to that end.

Unimportant? Hardly important? Irrelevant?

Then why do you permit the FCC to keep all those TECHNICAL
regulations?

You just don't seem to understand that.

I just don't understand YOU, Jimmy.


The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-)

Jimmy boy, YOU are a League BELIEVER. You are so far into
bias on that that all you generate are square waves.


btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

Highly irrelevant. NCI is NOT a "national association for amateur
radio." It exists for ONE purpose: Elimination of the code test
from amateur radio license examinations worldwide. That's it.



You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license.

"Outburst?!?" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, oh WHY must I show "an indication of interest?!?"

Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU
some kind of committment and dedication?!?!?

If your ego is THAT big, then you should go over to Coslo's BBS
since you will "reach the threashold of space" long before his
big balloon will...


So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

Nope. I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other.

As a bachelor I had an "involvement" with an English teacher,
a very nice one, in fact.

Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you
less of a one-track Believer.


You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

Oh, oh, there goes that control-freak EGO again, Jimmy.

Work on that. It's bad socially.


Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.

Irrelevant. Chances are they will take my comments seriously.

Doesn't matter, the PUBLIC has spoken to the FCC 3,794 times
through WT Docket 05-235.


Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!

Who wrote that?

Dave Heil. Why aren't you paying ATTENTION to the flow? :-(


See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude. An evangelical
Believer,
wet proselyte for a battery of morse gods, an acidic base.

Jimmy boy, I'm quite aware of the EM spectrum and who occupies what
"bands." Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my
"first job in radio." I know spectrum occupany OUTSIDE of the ham
bands on HF, on MF, on VHF, on UHF, and on up to 2.4 GHz. WHAT are
YOU going to tell ME? That contests are "popular?" I could find
that out by seeing the boosterism for that in print in CQ or QST.

Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio?
Are you more interested in awards, trophies, pretty certificates
than radio for radio's sake? It sure sounds like it since you
love getting praise, even from friends and neighbors. :-)

This Thursday and Friday I was involved in Thanksgiving in the
literal sense. Good friends got together, didn't talk at all
about amateur radio or morse code. Sunday is another nice
get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the
talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or
the beeping state of the radio art. No "contests" of any real
kind. Sunnuvagun!

Have fun in your amateur beeping contests. Those sound very,
Very, VERY important to you. Enjoy.

wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm


wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.
I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.
That's a very good thing!

Why? Are you morsemen so elitist you can't get along with others?

Where's my obligation to get along with you? You seemingly don't feel
any need to get along with me.

Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code!

But not by direct radio contact.

Most absolutely INCORRECT, Jim-Jim.

Naw, he's CORRECT, Len-Len.

DIRECT from a maritime transceiver as a civilian.

You really need to work on sentence structure.

You can communicate worldwide from a maritime transceiver, Len?

DIRECT from a
government radio transmitter.

That's just a clause, Santa. Do you know where you can lay your mitts
on a government transmitter?

DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?

And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len.

Then why do you fuss with morse and standards that are over
70 years old?

Do you remember that amateur radio is done for the love of radio? The
internet isn't amateur radio. A cellular telephone isn't amateur radio.
If you'd like to spend your days on the internet, that's fine. If your
thing is spending money to telephone folks via cellular phone, then have
at it.


Why do you live in the past?

Tsk, I don't.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

You were born before 1951? YOU talked much of it in previous post.

YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in-
the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900.
Are you 105 years old?!?

You've written about Fessenden a number of times. Aren't you nearly
thirty-five years shy of 105?

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time.

When did MY "time" begin, Jimmy? My "first radio job" in HF comms
began in 1953. I was there then, did it, came back. Never used
any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to.

....and because you never had to (in your time), no one should be using
morse code in this enlightened day and age?

Are you the only one allowed to do that?

Tsk, you are getting disturbed. Calm down, just keep on bringing
up all those tidbits of "radio history" as you need to. Be mindful
of some critics, though. Not all of those are me. :-)

You've brought up numerous bits of radio history, Len. Some of them
were even correct.

"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Incorrect. It is a part of electronics, a technology discipline.


"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

INCORRECT.

Electronics is one TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE of physics.

Didn't Dexter teach you the correct way to look at
physics...like everyone else does?


Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the
world of electronics...and radio. :-)

They seem to track pretty well, Len. You, on the other hand, haven't
done very well in here with definitions.


Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

And much more.

And, of course, YOU do so much more... :-)

Jim does much more in amateur radio than you do. I do much more in
amateur radio than you do. The guy who received his amateur radio
license last week does so much more in amateur radio than you do.

Have you defeated any enemies of Homeland Security with your
amateur morsemanship?

Has an opportunity arisen, Len?

Have you saved any lives in the Gulf States with your amateur
morsemanship?

Many radio amateurs did so. Jim is quite some distance from the scenes
of the recent hurricanes.

NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

Why do you consider yourself so "significant?" :-)

That wasn't a good answer, Len. Can you attach any significance to what
you've offered? Is it supposed to have meaning for us?

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and
passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops"
of "tradition." :-)

That sounds like sour grapes on your part, Leonard. Those of us who
took and passed such an exam demonstrated that we'd reached a certain
level of competence in what is a useful skill in amateur radio.

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Who else? :-)

YOU are NOT in the FCC.

I didn't see any statement by Jim that he's the FCC.

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

Yes, MY OPINION! :-) Do you think someone else is writing
all this? :-)

It would seem to be that you've not bothered to substantiate your
opinion with fact. How many is many? How many radio amateurs have you
encountered who are deficient. What percentage of all licensed radio
amateurs do they represent?

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

Why is that a factor in AMATEUR radio?

I'd think it'd be something to crow about. I think many folks would be
pleased to know more about radio theory than a PROFESSIONAL.


The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-)

You can take it upon yourself to conduct one, Len. If you weren't
prepared to accept Jim's answers, why'd you pose the question?

Jimmy boy, YOU are a League BELIEVER. You are so far into
bias on that that all you generate are square waves.

Well, Lennie boy, what is it that you believe in? Do you believe that
the ARRL is an evil organization? You've leveled charges of dishonesty
toward the League, but you never substantiated them.

btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

Highly irrelevant. NCI is NOT a "national association for amateur
radio."

No, it isn't. Can you name any such organization except for the ARRL?

It exists for ONE purpose: Elimination of the code test
from amateur radio license examinations worldwide. That's it.

There seems to have been at least one exception to that stated purpose
already.

You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license.

"Outburst?!?" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I prefer to call it an episode of braggadocio. It has come back to
haunt you repeatedly.

Why, oh WHY must I show "an indication of interest?!?"

One reason could be that you'd be seen as something other than a
sidewalk superintendent in amateur radio. If you have no interest, as
you've alternately claimed, you are irrelevant to amateur radio and you
become a kook who haunts an amateur radio newsgroup.

Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU
some kind of committment and dedication?!?!?

"Commitment", Len. Nobody forces you to show commitment or dedication.
You needn't obtain or even attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
If you don't, you won't appear to be very credible. Your extensive
rants will be marginalized. You'll be in the same boat as a certain
English teacher.

If your ego is THAT big, then you should go over to Coslo's BBS
since you will "reach the threashold of space" long before his
big balloon will...

Are you telling him to leave, Len?

So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

Nope. I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other.

....and you wife isn't amateur radio. ZIC/ZID.

As a bachelor I had an "involvement" with an English teacher,
a very nice one, in fact.

Sure, Leonard, and you're getting an "Extra right out of the box".

Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you
less of a one-track Believer.

When it was said that you have the same level of involvement as the
English teacher, you said, "I am as involved as can be with my wife.
None other". Here you seem to indicate that marriage makes one "less of
a one-track Believer". You can't even agree with you.

You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

Oh, oh, there goes that control-freak EGO again, Jimmy.

Nobody is controlling you, including yourself. You shot off your mouth
when you made your boast six years ago. You haven't lived up to that
billing.

Work on that. It's bad socially.

If you think that's bad socially, you should be in the shoes of one who
shoots off his yap, saying he's going to do something, but who doesn't
follow through.

Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.

Irrelevant. Chances are they will take my comments seriously.

I don't think you should make that assumption, Len.

Doesn't matter, the PUBLIC has spoken to the FCC 3,794 times
through WT Docket 05-235.

It matters. How many times were you "the public" in regard to 05-235?
Of the members of the PUBLIC who spoke, how many (excluding you) didn't
share your view?


Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!
Who wrote that?

Dave Heil. Why aren't you paying ATTENTION to the flow? :-(

You've made another factual error, Leonard. You seem to be the person
who needs to pay ATTENTION.


See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude. An evangelical
Believer,
wet proselyte for a battery of morse gods, an acidic base.

I offered a simple experiment. You declined. You shrunk from the
challenge.

Jimmy boy, I'm quite aware of the EM spectrum and who occupies what
"bands."

Well, Lennie boy, you'll find those radio amateur morse signals at the
low end of the bands marked "160, 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters" this
weekend. They're there all the time but you'll find them in profusion
this weekend.

Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my
"first job in radio." I know spectrum occupany OUTSIDE of the ham
bands on HF, on MF, on VHF, on UHF, and on up to 2.4 GHz. WHAT are
YOU going to tell ME?

It'd be tough to reach you. You spend too much time with your
transmitter on and not enough time using the receiver.

That contests are "popular?" I could find
that out by seeing the boosterism for that in print in CQ or QST.

Was the intent to prove that contests are popular or was it to show that
morse code is alive and well in amateur radio?

Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio?
Are you more interested in awards, trophies, pretty certificates
than radio for radio's sake? It sure sounds like it since you
love getting praise, even from friends and neighbors. :-)

What would any of that be to you, Len? You aren't in amateur radio and
you wouldn't even turn on your receiver to find if the morse code is
alive and well.

This Thursday and Friday I was involved in Thanksgiving in the
literal sense. Good friends got together, didn't talk at all
about amateur radio or morse code. Sunday is another nice
get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the
talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or
the beeping state of the radio art. No "contests" of any real
kind. Sunnuvagun!

I went to an apple festival this fall. No one there talked about
amateur radio or morse code. Is that supposed to prove that morse code
is dead? I didn't hear a single person there discussing NASA, Darwin or
jazz either.

Have fun in your amateur beeping contests. Those sound very,
Very, VERY important to you. Enjoy.

Thanks for your good wishes. Those things are far more important to me
than obtaining an amateur radio license seems to be for you. Your
participation is not required.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?

Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

You were born before 1951? YOU talked much of it in previous post.

YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in-
the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900.
Are you 105 years old?!?

You've written about Fessenden a number of times. Aren't you nearly
thirty-five years shy of 105?

All that noise is Len's diversion from the fact that Fessenden was
transmitting
understandable voice by radio in 1900, and by November 1906 had
reliable two-way
transatlantic *voice* communication working.

When Len doesn't like facts, he goes for the messenger.

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

See? Just like that.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time.

When did MY "time" begin, Jimmy? My "first radio job" in HF comms
began in 1953. I was there then, did it, came back. Never used
any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to.

...and because you never had to (in your time), no one should be using
morse code in this enlightened day and age?

That about sums it up.
Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the
world of electronics...and radio. :-)

They seem to track pretty well, Len. You, on the other hand, haven't
done very well in here with definitions.

"Usenet"...."UCMJ".......

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and
passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops"
of "tradition." :-)

That sounds like sour grapes on your part, Leonard. Those of us who
took and passed such an exam demonstrated that we'd reached a certain
level of competence in what is a useful skill in amateur radio.

Like I said about Len not valuing operating skills....

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Who else? :-)

YOU are NOT in the FCC.

I didn't see any statement by Jim that he's the FCC.

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

Yes, MY OPINION! :-) Do you think someone else is writing
all this? :-)

It would seem to be that you've not bothered to substantiate your
opinion with fact. How many is many? How many radio amateurs have you
encountered who are deficient. What percentage of all licensed radio
amateurs do they represent?

Most important of all - what level would be adequate? And what has Len
done
to make hams reach that level? (Recommending an age requirement doesn't
cut it).

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

Why is that a factor in AMATEUR radio?

I'd think it'd be something to crow about. I think many folks would be
pleased to know more about radio theory than a PROFESSIONAL.


The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-)

You can take it upon yourself to conduct one, Len. If you weren't
prepared to accept Jim's answers, why'd you pose the question?

Jimmy boy, YOU are a League BELIEVER. You are so far into
bias on that that all you generate are square waves.

Well, Lennie boy, what is it that you believe in? Do you believe that
the ARRL is an evil organization? You've leveled charges of dishonesty
toward the League, but you never substantiated them.

I'd almost forgotten that.

btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

Highly irrelevant. NCI is NOT a "national association for amateur
radio."

No, it isn't. Can you name any such organization except for the ARRL?

It exists for ONE purpose: Elimination of the code test
from amateur radio license examinations worldwide. That's it.

There seems to have been at least one exception to that stated purpose
already.

Actually, at least two:

NCI opposed "weak signal" subbands on the 50, 144 and 432 MHz bands.
The
proposal was intended to create subbands where Morse Code, SSB, PSK31
and
other relatively-narrow-bandwidth signals would be free of QRM from FM
and other
wider-bandwidth signals. Had absolutely *nothing* to do with Morse Code
testing,
yet NCI opposed it.

NCI also supported an ARRL proposal that would have given automatic
free upgrades to a significant number of amateurs by waiving the
*written* tests for those upgrades. Again, had absolutely *nothing* to
do with Morse Code testing, yet NCI supported it.

You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license.

"Outburst?!?" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I prefer to call it an episode of braggadocio. It has come back to
haunt you repeatedly.

Jan 19, 2000, as Lenof21 IIRC. (Len has had multiple screen names here
for some
unfathomable reason).

Why, oh WHY must I show "an indication of interest?!?"

One reason could be that you'd be seen as something other than a
sidewalk superintendent in amateur radio. If you have no interest, as
you've alternately claimed, you are irrelevant to amateur radio and you
become a kook who haunts an amateur radio newsgroup.

Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU
some kind of committment and dedication?!?!?

"Commitment", Len. Nobody forces you to show commitment or dedication.
You needn't obtain or even attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
If you don't, you won't appear to be very credible. Your extensive
rants will be marginalized. You'll be in the same boat as a certain
English teacher.

Actually the English teacher is more credible because she admits her
lack of involvement and interest.

If your ego is THAT big, then you should go over to Coslo's BBS
since you will "reach the threashold of space" long before his
big balloon will...

Are you telling him to leave, Len?

So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

Nope. I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other.

...and you wife isn't amateur radio. ZIC/ZID.

As a bachelor I had an "involvement" with an English teacher,
a very nice one, in fact.

Sure, Leonard, and you're getting an "Extra right out of the box".

Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you
less of a one-track Believer.

When it was said that you have the same level of involvement as the
English teacher, you said, "I am as involved as can be with my wife.
None other". Here you seem to indicate that marriage makes one "less of
a one-track Believer". You can't even agree with you.

You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

Oh, oh, there goes that control-freak EGO again, Jimmy.

Nobody is controlling you, including yourself. You shot off your mouth
when you made your boast six years ago. You haven't lived up to that
billing.

Suppose the FCC does drop Element 1 (which is really quite likely).

Does anyone think Len will become a ham, set up a station, and get on
the air?

Work on that. It's bad socially.

If you think that's bad socially, you should be in the shoes of one who
shoots off his yap, saying he's going to do something, but who doesn't
follow through.

Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.

Irrelevant. Chances are they will take my comments seriously.

I don't think you should make that assumption, Len.

Doesn't matter, the PUBLIC has spoken to the FCC 3,794 times
through WT Docket 05-235.

It matters. How many times were you "the public" in regard to 05-235?
Of the members of the PUBLIC who spoke, how many (excluding you) didn't
share your view?

Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!
Who wrote that?

Dave Heil. Why aren't you paying ATTENTION to the flow? :-(

You've made another factual error, Leonard. You seem to be the person
who needs to pay ATTENTION.


See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude. An evangelical
Believer,
wet proselyte for a battery of morse gods, an acidic base.

I offered a simple experiment. You declined. You shrunk from the
challenge.

Jimmy boy, I'm quite aware of the EM spectrum and who occupies what
"bands."

Well, Lennie boy, you'll find those radio amateur morse signals at the
low end of the bands marked "160, 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters" this
weekend. They're there all the time but you'll find them in profusion
this weekend.

Len doesn't listen.

Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my
"first job in radio." I know spectrum occupany OUTSIDE of the ham
bands on HF, on MF, on VHF, on UHF, and on up to 2.4 GHz. WHAT are
YOU going to tell ME?

It'd be tough to reach you. You spend too much time with your
transmitter on and not enough time using the receiver.

That contests are "popular?" I could find
that out by seeing the boosterism for that in print in CQ or QST.

Was the intent to prove that contests are popular or was it to show that
morse code is alive and well in amateur radio?

Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio?
Are you more interested in awards, trophies, pretty certificates
than radio for radio's sake? It sure sounds like it since you
love getting praise, even from friends and neighbors. :-)

What would any of that be to you, Len? You aren't in amateur radio and
you wouldn't even turn on your receiver to find if the morse code is
alive and well.

This Thursday and Friday I was involved in Thanksgiving in the
literal sense. Good friends got together, didn't talk at all
about amateur radio or morse code. Sunday is another nice
get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the
talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or
the beeping state of the radio art. No "contests" of any real
kind. Sunnuvagun!

I went to an apple festival this fall. No one there talked about
amateur radio or morse code. Is that supposed to prove that morse code
is dead? I didn't hear a single person there discussing NASA, Darwin or
jazz either.

Have fun in your amateur beeping contests. Those sound very,
Very, VERY important to you. Enjoy.

Thanks for your good wishes. Those things are far more important to me
than obtaining an amateur radio license seems to be for you. Your
participation is not required.

Len's hobby is wasting time. Your time.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?

Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value.

a fair enough assesment of len views

but your point
cut

From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm


wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?

Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value.

a fair enough assesment of len views

I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be
any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio
operator's license.

The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents.

Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are
all that is "operating skill."

wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm


wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?

Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value.

a fair enough assesment of len views

I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be
any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio
operator's license.

my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim as a
Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that
says Cw test was the same as operating skill (just tryin some
hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as
traped as Stevie and Dave

The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents.

Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are
all that is "operating skill."

wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.

That's a very good thing!

Why?

Because if you did "RF transmission in amateur bands" without the
proper
license, you could be breaking the law, Len. That would be a very bad
thing.

Are you morsemen so elitist you can't get along with others?

I get along with all sorts of people, Len. Including many who disagree
with
me. You're the one that has the problem getting along with others if
they
don't agree with everything you say.

Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code!

But not by direct radio contact.

Most absolutely INCORRECT, Jim-Jim.

DIRECT from a maritime transceiver as a civilian.

Worldwide? I don't think so.

DIRECT from a government radio transmitter.

Are you authorized to do so?

DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

Neither of those are *your* equipment, licensed to *you*, are they?

And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len.

Then why do you fuss with morse and standards that are over
70 years old?

The standards are a lot newer than "70 years old", Len.

As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the
reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with:

- cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics
- sailboats instead of power boats
- Drawing and painting instead of photography
- Performing music instead of playing recordings
- Bicycles, running and walking for transport instead of motor vehicles
- Stairs instead of elevators
- Homemade food instead of packaged

And many more.

Why do you live in the past?

Tsk, I don't.

You sure talk about it a lot, though.

You were born before 1951?

No. Were you born before 1932? You sure talk about it a lot.

YOU talked much of it in previous post.

Because I know something of those times and the creation of the
Extra class license.

YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in-
the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900.

That's right. Was any of my information incorrect?

Are you 105 years old?!?

No - are you? Because you sure take issue about Fessenden's
accomplishments
even though they are before you were born.

Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of
history that happened before *your* time.

When did MY "time" begin, Jimmy? My "first radio job" in HF comms
began in 1953.

Yet you talk about 1951 and amateur radio, even though you had nothing
to do with amateur radio then.

I was there then, did it, came back. Never used
any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to.

Because you were a transmitter technician, not a radio operator.

It's odd that you take pride in what you did *not* do...

Are you the only one allowed to do that?

Tsk, you are getting disturbed.

Not me.

It sure does seem that you talk about things that happened long
before you were born, but get mad when others talk about things
that happened long before *they* were born. As if it's OK for
you to do but not others.

Calm down, just keep on bringing
up all those tidbits of "radio history" as you need to. Be mindful
of some critics, though. Not all of those are me. :-)

Like who?

"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Incorrect. It is a part of electronics, a technology discipline.

Nope. It's a separate subset. Electronics does not include things
like antennas. Radio does.

"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

INCORRECT.

What parts of electronics are not covered by electrical engineering,
Len?

Electronics is one TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE of physics.

No, it isn't.

Physics is a science. Electrical engineering is a form of engineering,
and electronics is a subset of that.

Do try to keep up, Len. Your mistakes (like the ones Hans pointed out
about DD-214s) are embarrassing.

Didn't Dexter teach you the correct way to look at
physics...like everyone else does?

Who is "Dexter", Len?

Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the
world of electronics...and radio. :-)

Yours don't jive with anything - like your spelling. Shall we call you
"Vshah101"?

Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

And much more.

And, of course, YOU do so much more... :-)

Yes, I do. You don't.

NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

Why do you consider yourself so "significant?" :-)

It's not about me, Len.

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and
passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops"
of "tradition." :-)

Incorrect. There were comments to the FCC by people who had
not passed the Morse Code test which said it was a good thing
and should be retained. The English Teacher is one of them,
but not the only one.

If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone
proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's
basic logic.

So your sweeping general statement:

"It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and passed it"

has been proven to be untrue and invalid.

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC.

And approved by the FCC

Who else? :-)

YOU are NOT in the FCC.

Neither are you, Len.

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY.

Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not
exactly unbiased in your opinions.

Yes, MY OPINION! :-) Do you think someone else is writing
all this? :-)

Your bloviating is so voluminuous that there could be more than one
of you....;-)

Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than
you, Len.

I charge that based on MY life
experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions
of rather elementary level on radio theory.

Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len.

Tsk, your definition of "polite" seems to be everyone agreeing
with you and giving your gratuitous praise for whatever you do.

Nope. That's *your* definition.

How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did
they get a look at a 1957 Extra test?

Why is that important here...other than satisfying your nasty
little nyah-nyahs?

Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len.

No, sweetums, YOU disagree with me. YOU are NOT the FCC.

FCC hasn't revoked their licenses. Nor has FCC required widespread
retesting of amateurs. FCC considers those folks you disdain to be
qualified to operate amateur radio stations. FCC does not consider
*you* to be qualified to operate an amateur radio station, though.

Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of
operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment.

INCORRECT.

No, correct. The license is for operating, not for building.

Modes and frequencies are specifically allocated
and given in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. NOT "all types" as you
state. [tsk, tsk] NOT "all sorts of modes" since those are
limited. NOT "all sorts of equipment" either since there are
exceptions stated in Part 97. Look those up.

Don't have to look them up, I know them.

Technical stuff is just a means to that end.

Unimportant? Hardly important? Irrelevant?

No, just not of primary importance. A means to an end,
not the end in itself.

Then why do you permit the FCC to keep all those TECHNICAL
regulations?

Which ones? The technical regulations for amateur radio are very few,
very basic, and offer radio amateurs a lot of variety and freedom.

You just don't seem to understand that.

I just don't understand YOU, Jimmy.

It's understandable that you'd not understand a superior intellect, Len
;-) ;-)

OTOH I understand you all too well. That's why you're so hostile to me.

The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?

Some disagree with League policies
Some think membership costs too much.
Some are inactive
Some don't understand why a national organization is needed.

You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-)

Yes ;-)

btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs
even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires.

Highly irrelevant.

Completely relevant. Proves the point.

NCI is NOT a "national association for amateur
radio."

That's true - it's "International". Or perhaps "Internationale"?

It exists for ONE purpose: Elimination of the code test
from amateur radio license examinations worldwide. That's it.

Len, you're and NCI BELIEVER. You're so biased that you cannot
conduct enough to see what really happens.

At least twice, NCI has gotten involved in proposed FCC rules
changes that have *nothing* to do with Morse Code testing. Of
course they have every right to comment on such changes, but
doing so disproves the claim that NCI exists for ONE purpose.

You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license.

"Outburst?!?" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. Back in January of 2000, with your 'Extra out of the box' claim.

But it's still in the box.

Why, oh WHY must I show "an indication of interest?!?"

You don't. Neither does the English Teacher you criticize so much.

Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU
some kind of committment and dedication?!?!?

Who do I have to be?

If your ego is THAT big, then you should go over to Coslo's BBS
since you will "reach the threashold of space" long before his
big balloon will...

So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement.

Nope. I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other.

As a bachelor I had an "involvement" with an English teacher,
a very nice one, in fact.

Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you
less of a one-track Believer.

Len, for all you know, I could have more marriage experience than
you have.

Really burns you not to know more about my personal life, huh?

You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost
six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur
license.

Oh, oh, there goes that control-freak EGO again, Jimmy.

Yes, Len, your control-freak ego sure does go off at times.
Telling everyone How It Should Be.

Work on that. It's bad socially.

Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len.

Irrelevant. Chances are they will take my comments seriously.

Odds are they chuckle, if not guffaw.

Doesn't matter, the PUBLIC has spoken to the FCC 3,794 times
through WT Docket 05-235.

And most of the PUBLIC wants at least some Morse Code testing
to be retained.

Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!

Who wrote that?

Dave Heil.

Where?

Show us the exact quote where he said you should have obtained
an amateur radio license before accepting professional radio
employment!

C'mon, show us the quote. Or maybe you can't, because it doesn't exist.

See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude.

IOW, yes, you're afraid.

Jimmy boy, I'm quite aware of the EM spectrum and who occupies what
"bands."

But obviously not what goes on in the amateur radio bands.

Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my
"first job in radio."

So you're old. Big deal. You want a merit badge?

I know spectrum occupany OUTSIDE of the ham
bands on HF, on MF, on VHF, on UHF, and on up to 2.4 GHz.

Obviously not.

WHAT are YOU going to tell ME?

That Morse Code is alive and well in the amateur bands. As much
as that may bother you, it's true.

That contests are "popular?" I could find
that out by seeing the boosterism for that in print in CQ or QST.

Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio?

One of my main interests in amateur radio. I have several. You don't
seem
to have any.

Are you more interested in awards, trophies, pretty certificates
than radio for radio's sake? It sure sounds like it since you
love getting praise, even from friends and neighbors. :-)

Actually, I enjoy the competition, the operating, testing my skill and
equipment against others and my previous efforts. Awards, trophies
and certificates aren't why I contest.

This Thursday and Friday I was involved in Thanksgiving in the
literal sense.

ï‚· That's nice. What has it got to do with amateur radio?
ï‚·
ï‚· Good friends got together, didn't talk at all about amateur
radio
ï‚· or morse code.
ï‚·
Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those
subjects.

Sunday is another nice
get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the
talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or
the beeping state of the radio art.

That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model.

No "contests" of any real kind. Sunnuvagun!

Can't take the competition, huh?

This past weekend I hosted Thanksgiving for 12 people –
friends and family. I cooked a 21 pound turkey with homemade
stuffing, made homemade bread, did it up right. Others did the
vegetables and desserts.

Can you cook, Len?

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services.

That's a very good thing!

Why?

Because if you did "RF transmission in amateur bands" without the
proper
license, you could be breaking the law, Len. That would be a very bad
thing.

not to condone the full range of freebanding but isn't this sentment
going a bit far

generating RF in Ham Bands without a license should be relitively low
on the rangeof Good/Bad stuff

Murder is generaly very bad
cut Worldwide? I don't think so.

DIRECT from a government radio transmitter.

Are you authorized to do so?

why is it your place to ask?
cut.

Then why do you fuss with morse and standards that are over
70 years old?

The standards are a lot newer than "70 years old", Len.

not realy
cut