From: on Jan 4, 5:21 pm

wrote:
From: Jeffrey Herman on Dec 31 2005, 6:19 pm
Dec 31 2005, 6:19 pm show options


What separates an Extra from an Tech is not a "caste system" but rather
who had the motivation to study versus who didn't.

Actually, the difference is who met the various requirements and
who didn't.

Actually NO. Those who PASSED the tests got theirs.

The TESTS have been largely modified by amateur politics to
reflect what a small, special-interest group desired.

That should be glaringly obvious over the years, resulting in
the Byzantine-structured SIX license classes that existed
prior to Restructuring of 2000.


Motivation versus a lack of motivation *is* exactly why we have a
population of citizens with various educational, vocational, and
wealth differences.

Hay, coach, how's about "backing that up with FACTS?"

It would have been correct if you struck out "motivation"
and replaced it with abilities or aptitudes.

An ability or aptitude is only one factor.

Tsk, tsk, that's so PRIME that there really aren't "any other
factors." :-)


Motivation is the key to everything. Study and you'll become what
you wish; if you do not study you'll never become anything.

The art student with NO art aptitude can study until they
are blue in the face about art, but they will NEVER be a
great artist.

Maybe not.

But they will be a better artist than the person with a high aptitude
for art who never studies.

Nonsense, Jimmie, pure unadulterated NONSENSE. [try not to get
in over your head (again) into areas where you have NO
expertise]

ART is in the DOING. Artists "learn" media by doing. It's the
ONLY way it can be done. All will tell you so. Those who aren't
gifted with the art aptitude APPEAR to "not study" (to non-art
people) only because you can't get into their head, feel their
mind-hand-media coordination, feel their inspiration when their
inner mind guides their hands through their eyes.

"Studying" art consists of a lot of make-work "book learning"
of artists from contemporary to the Old Masters. One absorbs
a lot of facts but NO real relationship to DOING art.


The wannabe sports hero can study their buns off on their
favorite sport, but if they don't have the ability or
aptitude for that sport, they will only amass a mass of
facts and statistics.

Athletic accomplishment is not developed by "study". It is developed by
training, practice and competition. All the aptitude or ability will
not amount to anything without training.

More NONSENSE, Jimmie. You can't make a 140 pound runner into
a football linebacker (college or pro level) through "study"
OR "training, practice, competition." For one thing, the
"training" will result in injuries (when the real linebackers
smoosh then into the ground) so that they can't "practice."
There won't be any "competition" because they can't survive
the "training."

On the same token, it is highly unlikely that the linebacker
physical type will ever develop into the longer-distance runner
due to the body's structure. NO "training, practice,
competition" will result since their bodies aren't capable.

That's just two examples of WHY there are so many kinds of
physical sport.


Without the ability or aptitude, a person will not become a world-class
athlete.

True enough. You are finally coming around to it...

But a person with very little "sports ability" who trains will be
a better athlete than the person with high aptitude who does not train.

Did you watch Texas v. USC in the Rose Bowl Championship game?

The Longhorns were NOT using long-distance runner physique types
for their defensive team.


If one doesn't have the aptitude for "hearing" morse code
as a "language," all the study in the world will NOT make
them good morsemen.

There are obviously different levels of Morse Code aptitude. But the
person who does not study will not learn it, regardless of aptitude.

TRAINING and PRACTICE, Jimmie, NOT "study."

You are disagreeing with yourself.


Most people learn to understand and speak a language by the age of
three years, and if the opportunity exists, to read and write by the
age of seven or eight years (if not earlier). Both are much more
complex cognitive tasks than learning Morse Code at 20 wpm or so.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Human languages are "learnable" because of the
inate ability of humans to relate sounds...tone, pitch, duration,
etc., to concepts, emotions, intellectual information, etc.

"Morse code" is NOT A LANGUAGE per se.

International Morse Code is a REPRESENTATION of the English
language alphanumeric characters (plus most punctuation).

Feel free to study all the languages of the world, be a
linguistic scientist. You will NOT find any human languages
which are based on monotonic bursts of sound.


I suspect that Jeff's reasons are similar to *your* reasons for
holding fast to old requirements in local real estate zoning and
oppose modernization of those regulations.

Total Troll Bull****, Jimmie.

Local Zoning regulations have NOTHING to do with the subject
in this thread.

You've MANUFACTURED an issue which is NOT an amateur radio
policy issue.


Amateur radio is NOT a job, NOT a craft, guild, or union.

That's true.

Does that mean there should be no requirements for it?

No standards? No accomplishments or skills?

You seem to think so.

More Trolling BS, Jimmie. I stated that amateur radio is NOT
a job, NOT a craft, guild, or union. It is NOT professional
by definition of the FCC...that is why the Commission defines
it as AMATEUR radio.

Since amateur radio is NOT a profession, there is NO need to
ACT or PRETEND or falsly-raise-to-professional-standards
ANYTHING that is done in amateur radio. It is basically a
HOBBY and the "accomplishments" and "skills" by individual
hobbyists are venerated in the media, NOT by the Commission.

The FCC REQUIRES certain technical regulations to be met (or
be considered illegal if not within those regulations). Doing
so requires skills, accomplishments in making sure those
REGULATIONS are met...or knowing enough to have others, WITH
skills and accomplishments in metrology, to find out if their
equipment is within regulations.

We have seen what happens to a radio service like that. It's called cb.

Citizens Band Radio Service has evolved since its "Class D"
beginning in 1958, 48 years ago. If there is a "fault" in
CB, that is due mainly to lack of enforcement in the face of
unexpected growth of users through low-cost offshore imports.

There was NEVER any "regulation" stating that CB users must
always act like hams, use the same jargon, use the same
procedures, etc., etc.

Radio amateurs do NOT use the same jargon, procedures, etc.,
as the Aircraft Radio Service.

Radio amateurs do NOT use the same jargon, procedures, etc.,
as the Maritime Radio Service.

Radio amateurs do NOT use the same jargon, procedures, etc.,
as Private Land Mobile Radio Service.

Radio amateurs do NOT use the same jargon, procedures, etc.,
as any of the Military radio services. [ roger that! ]

Radio amateurs do NOT use the same jargon, procedures, etc.,
as the Radio Control Radio Service (Part 95).

Why don't hams emulate one of the other radio services? And
why do so many demand that CB users act, do, talk like they?

Remember that the appelation "ham" derived long ago (about
1900) as an unkind word applied by professional radio
operators towards the amateurs. Amateurs seem to have LIKED
it and, ever since, have pretended to be "as good" and
sometimes (in a fit of grandeur) "better than" (!) the pros.

Ever since the Test-less CB Class D radio service was created
48 years ago, hams have derided it, called it names, denigrated
anyone who used that "new" allocation for Citizens...for NOT
being just like the hams. Hams didn't like the NEW jargon that
evolved (by millions more users than existed in the ham service)
or the use of "10" codes (a la some state police on radio) or
much of anything else about it. Now YOU are joining in the
fray. Why? What has CB done to you? Why do you hate it?

You want to POLICE the CB channels? Feel free. No license
required, purchase a whole set for under $100 at Wal-Mart.
Get on the air on CB, "show them how it is done." Get
MOTIVATED! Be da Man!

:-)