| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
I am a new ham and will respond to this based on being new. I got my
license last year at age 48 so I'm neither a kid nor a senior. I've been tested and scored at 136 so I'm not a genius but am far from a dummy. I mention these things to give a general picture of who I am and where my position comes from. Radio Buff wrote: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. Although I see the reasoning behind this request I disagree. There are older hams who wouldn't be able to pass their license class test but who still enjoy participating in their nets and talking to their circle of ham friends. I don't want to be the one to take that away from a senior ham who is hurting absolutely no one by enjoying their hobby. The fact they might not pass the Extra test means nothing. Radio Buff isn't going to want to give up enjoying radio when he/she is older and can't pass the exam either. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. I have no problem with this provided the exam is similar. If you want to raise the minimum score required while also increasing the difficulty level of the exam by 20-25% the combination will make it too difficult for many. You will kill amateur radio because there will be far fewer coming into the hobby than going SK. Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Code should not be a part of the license test anymore than PSK or any other operating mode. There are so many different ways to enjoy and utilize amateur radio today that were not available decades ago that make code no longer a necessity. Mandating code skills is now similar to mandating slide rule skills for an engineer. It is an excellent tool and anyone capable of using it has a true skill. That said, there is nothing that can't be done by one without slide rule skills. They may be at a disadvantage at certain times and in certain specific locations and scenarios but for the most part the individual with the slide rule skills has no true advantage today as they did a few decades ago. The same holds true with code. I do believe there should be a segment of the bands each license class is authorized that is reserved for those with code in their license. It just shouldn't be a requirement any longer. It keeps otherwise intelligent and capable people away from the hobby and the goal should be to bring them in not keep them away. Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. This point is pointless with the sensible approach outlined above. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
" wrote in
ps.com: I am a new ham and will respond to this based on being new. I got my license last year at age 48 so I'm neither a kid nor a senior. I've been tested and scored at 136 so I'm not a genius but am far from a dummy. I mention these things to give a general picture of who I am and where my position comes from. Radio Buff wrote: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. Although I see the reasoning behind this request I disagree. There are older hams who wouldn't be able to pass their license class test but who still enjoy participating in their nets and talking to their circle of ham friends. I don't want to be the one to take that away from a senior ham who is hurting absolutely no one by enjoying their hobby. The fact they might not pass the Extra test means nothing. Yes it does mean something. It means they're appliance operators. They pass their exams once then forget everything and don't want to advance themselves anymore or be proficient hams. They're not an asset to the service, they're just lazy asses with licenses and only want to operate appliances. Radio Buff isn't going to want to give up enjoying radio when he/she is older and can't pass the exam either. If I can't pass the tests, I don't deserve a license, or renewel. I don't get to operate if I can't qualify. It's that simple. You people think that if someone can't pass a test, they should get the license anyway. It's a government handout just like how you get your welfare checks and food stamps in the mail at your project housing. Your Democrat party outcome based thinking is what is distroying Amateur radio and America. Everyone is equal and if you want to excel and improve yourself there is something wrong with you because your not supposed to want to do that. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. I have no problem with this provided the exam is similar. If you want to raise the minimum score required while also increasing the difficulty level of the exam by 20-25% the combination will make it too difficult for many. You will kill amateur radio because there will be far fewer coming into the hobby than going SK. Quality or quantity? You people that want things easy always say requiring more qualified licensees will kill the service. You're against quality because it require you have to work a little. Well, If you ever need radio help in an emergency to save lives & property, and the ham operator you talk to on the other end is an incompetant retard, I'll bet you'd wished for quality then. Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Code should not be a part of the license test anymore than PSK or any other operating mode. There are so many different ways to enjoy and utilize amateur radio today that were not available decades ago that make code no longer a necessity. Mandating code skills is now similar to mandating slide rule skills for an engineer. It is an excellent tool and anyone capable of using it has a true skill. That said, there is nothing that can't be done by one without slide rule skills. They may be at a disadvantage at certain times and in certain specific locations and scenarios but for the most part the individual with the slide rule skills has no true advantage today as they did a few decades ago. The same holds true with code. Yah, we can't require quality or skill for a license. I know you're right. We gotta be like CB'ers. I do believe there should be a segment of the bands each license class is authorized that is reserved for those with code in their license. It just shouldn't be a requirement any longer. It keeps otherwise intelligent and capable people away from the hobby and the goal should be to bring them in not keep them away. Code isn't a requirement, you can always talk on CB, FRS, and cell phones all you want. Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. This point is pointless with the sensible approach outlined above. No, it's not pointless. It insures licenses will improve and will be valuable to the service. I know you would hate that because in another month you would either have to upgrade or loose your ticket. Doesn't anyone else here want to save ham radio? I'm getting tired of arguing with the lazy asses. I hope some of you cared and want to help me save ham radio enough that you emailed this to President Bush, your Senators and Congressmen to press the FCC does the right thing for us: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. 73, Thanks for your support. SC |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in ps.com: I am a new ham and will respond to this based on being new. I got my license last year at age 48 so I'm neither a kid nor a senior. I've been tested and scored at 136 so I'm not a genius but am far from a dummy. I mention these things to give a general picture of who I am and where my position comes from. Radio Buff wrote: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. Although I see the reasoning behind this request I disagree. There are older hams who wouldn't be able to pass their license class test but who still enjoy participating in their nets and talking to their circle of ham friends. I don't want to be the one to take that away from a senior ham who is hurting absolutely no one by enjoying their hobby. The fact they might not pass the Extra test means nothing. Yes it does mean something. It means they're appliance operators. They pass their exams once then forget everything and don't want to advance themselves anymore or be proficient hams. They're not an asset to the service, they're just lazy asses with licenses and only want to operate appliances. everyone that does not meet your standards is lazy right Mr Stpuid Radio Buff isn't going to want to give up enjoying radio when he/she is older and can't pass the exam either. If I can't pass the tests, I don't deserve a license, or renewel. I don't get to operate if I can't qualify. It's that simple. You people think that if someone can't pass a test, they should get the license anyway. It's a government handout just like how you get your welfare checks and food stamps in the mail at your project housing. Your Democrat party outcome based thinking is what is distroying Amateur radio and America. Everyone is equal and if you want to excel and improve yourself there is something wrong with you because your not supposed to want to do that. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. I have no problem with this provided the exam is similar. If you want to raise the minimum score required while also increasing the difficulty level of the exam by 20-25% the combination will make it too difficult for many. You will kill amateur radio because there will be far fewer coming into the hobby than going SK. Quality or quantity? You people that want things easy always say requiring more qualified licensees will kill the service. no I say throwing at least half the current memebers of the ars off the band would kill the service You're against quality because it require you have to work a little. nope I worked a lot for the novice I was neer able to get Well, If you ever need radio help in an emergency to save lives & property, and the ham operator you talk to on the other end is an incompetant retard, I'll bet you'd wished for quality then. first you might hope to FIND one Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Code should not be a part of the license test anymore than PSK or any other operating mode. There are so many different ways to enjoy and utilize amateur radio today that were not available decades ago that make code no longer a necessity. Mandating code skills is now similar to mandating slide rule skills for an engineer. It is an excellent tool and anyone capable of using it has a true skill. That said, there is nothing that can't be done by one without slide rule skills. They may be at a disadvantage at certain times and in certain specific locations and scenarios but for the most part the individual with the slide rule skills has no true advantage today as they did a few decades ago. The same holds true with code. Yah, we can't require quality or skill for a license. sure we can this has nothing to do with Morse Code testing however I know you're right. We gotta be like CB'ers. nope I do believe there should be a segment of the bands each license class is authorized that is reserved for those with code in their license. It just shouldn't be a requirement any longer. It keeps otherwise intelligent and capable people away from the hobby and the goal should be to bring them in not keep them away. Code isn't a requirement, you can always talk on CB, FRS, and cell phones all you want. indeed code WILL not be a requirement verysoon deal with it Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. This point is pointless with the sensible approach outlined above. No, it's not pointless. you got that right the point is that you want to kill the ARS becuase it has eveoled It insures licenses will improve and will be valuable to the service. nope I know you would hate that because in another month you would either have to upgrade or loose your ticket. nope I do hate the ioidea of yet again taking prevdeges away form operators that Have earned them I think een the ARRL and FCC learned that lesson year ago Doesn't anyone else here want to save ham radio? Sure I want to save it you don't I'm getting tired of arguing with the lazy asses. then do your self a kindness and stop you are not helping the ARS except for contuiing to prod the No Coders into pushing the FCC to stop the bleeding your kind hae created I hope some of you cared and want to help me save ham radio enough that you emailed this to President Bush, your Senators and Congressmen to press the FCC does the right thing for us: Indeed I did email your thought to a freind on the white house staff I reported on the laughter that rsulted No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. not bad but not likely since it will rsult in prevledges being taken away from those that EARNED them The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. if you like Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. suicide for the service and will never be enacted by the FCC they have ejuected anything that takes prevedlges awayfrom people Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. and the final throwing half of the ops currently licensed would insure the loos of most if not all of our spectrum is it just that simple 73, Thanks for your support. SC |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 10 Jul 2006 08:36:15 -0700, "
wrote: Radio Buff wrote: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Code should not be a part of the license test anymore than PSK or any other operating mode. I think that's one of the problems here. CW isn't just an operating mode - it's a language, and the test already includes one language, so testing for knowledge of a language isn't anything new. There's NEVER been a test of CW operating mode, technique or ability - just proficiency with the language of International Morse. Since one must demonstrate proficiency with another language (English) to obtain a license, it's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do theright thing.
Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in ps.com: I am a new ham and will respond to this based on being new. I got my license last year at age 48 so I'm neither a kid nor a senior. I've been tested and scored at 136 so I'm not a genius but am far from a dummy. I mention these things to give a general picture of who I am and where my position comes from. Radio Buff wrote: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. Although I see the reasoning behind this request I disagree. There are older hams who wouldn't be able to pass their license class test but who still enjoy participating in their nets and talking to their circle of ham friends. I don't want to be the one to take that away from a senior ham who is hurting absolutely no one by enjoying their hobby. The fact they might not pass the Extra test means nothing. Yes it does mean something. It means they're appliance operators. They pass their exams once then forget everything and don't want to advance themselves anymore or be proficient hams. They're not an asset to the service, they're just lazy asses with licenses and only want to operate appliances. Radio Buff isn't going to want to give up enjoying radio when he/she is older and can't pass the exam either. If I can't pass the tests, I don't deserve a license, or renewel. I don't get to operate if I can't qualify. It's that simple. You people think that if someone can't pass a test, they should get the license anyway. It's a government handout just like how you get your welfare checks and food stamps in the mail at your project housing. Your Democrat party outcome based thinking is what is distroying Amateur radio and America. Everyone is equal and if you want to excel and improve yourself there is something wrong with you because your not supposed to want to do that. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. I have no problem with this provided the exam is similar. If you want to raise the minimum score required while also increasing the difficulty level of the exam by 20-25% the combination will make it too difficult for many. You will kill amateur radio because there will be far fewer coming into the hobby than going SK. Quality or quantity? You people that want things easy always say requiring more qualified licensees will kill the service. You're against quality because it require you have to work a little. Well, If you ever need radio help in an emergency to save lives & property, and the ham operator you talk to on the other end is an incompetant retard, I'll bet you'd wished for quality then. Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Code should not be a part of the license test anymore than PSK or any other operating mode. There are so many different ways to enjoy and utilize amateur radio today that were not available decades ago that make code no longer a necessity. Mandating code skills is now similar to mandating slide rule skills for an engineer. It is an excellent tool and anyone capable of using it has a true skill. That said, there is nothing that can't be done by one without slide rule skills. They may be at a disadvantage at certain times and in certain specific locations and scenarios but for the most part the individual with the slide rule skills has no true advantage today as they did a few decades ago. The same holds true with code. Yah, we can't require quality or skill for a license. I know you're right. We gotta be like CB'ers. I do believe there should be a segment of the bands each license class is authorized that is reserved for those with code in their license. It just shouldn't be a requirement any longer. It keeps otherwise intelligent and capable people away from the hobby and the goal should be to bring them in not keep them away. Code isn't a requirement, you can always talk on CB, FRS, and cell phones all you want. Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. This point is pointless with the sensible approach outlined above. No, it's not pointless. It insures licenses will improve and will be valuable to the service. I know you would hate that because in another month you would either have to upgrade or loose your ticket. Doesn't anyone else here want to save ham radio? I'm getting tired of arguing with the lazy asses. I hope some of you cared and want to help me save ham radio enough that you emailed this to President Bush, your Senators and Congressmen to press the FCC does the right thing for us: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all elements required for their license class. The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. 73, Thanks for your support. SC Dip****. If code is the only way to go, why are you using text for your usenet messages? Can you say "Hypocrite" -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Slow Code wrote:...... snip I have never seen such a pompous, egotistical, arrogant horse's rear. You insult and denigrate anyone not holding the erroneous and outdated beliefs you espouse. You make assumptions about the character and education level of those who disagree, all of which are negative and insulting even though you know nothing of the person. You are wrong, both in your closed minded refusal to even attempt to see the other side of your mis-struck coin and moreso in your rude and insulting manner. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 10 Jul 2006 18:40:07 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: but it is load of bullto say Morse is a language Your opinion, not that of those who can converse in it. no such requirement exists indeed if you can read then the question and answers are suposed to read to you and your aswers taken down Languageless? You MUST demonstrate proficiency in at least ONE language to get a license, even today. A code test is demonstrating proficiency in two languages - not a major step. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 18:40:07 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: but it is load of bullto say Morse is a language Your opinion, not that of those who can converse in it. my opinion yes but also a fact Morse code is no more a language than Crillic is it is simply an alphabet you can exchange a limited amount of info using the stand codes but you can say "do you walk or run by the sea" in morse to any one that does not speak or read english first you are simply spreading ignorance al no such requirement exists indeed if you can read then the question and answers are suposed to read to you and your aswers taken down Languageless? yes indeed although it easier if you do understand english not required not suree if you can take the test in spanish (or other ;lang)right off but if not now soon I expect it will be possible You MUST demonstrate proficiency in at least ONE language to get a license, even today. nope no such requirement exists not for techs not generals and not extras either indeed you point out the way you can get a license without demtating skill with english if you simply memroize all the questions and answers their remains no requirement that you understand the content, that task is easier if you know english but not a requirement where is this requirement for lang skill in part 97? A code test is demonstrating proficiency in two languages - not a major step. expect you are never required to demostrate profiicentcy in any language at all and if you were 2 languages would twice one and Code is NOT a langauage just an alphabet Indeeded the ignorance of Hams that spread such tales have been one of the tools the No Code movement has been using against you |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
No Al, CW is a mode not a language. Are you seriously this ignorant?
Just about any language on the planet can use the mode CW which makes it not a language. You people that keep trying to make CW something it's not amaze me. It's not a god, it's just a old mode. Al Klein wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 08:36:15 -0700, " wrote: I think that's one of the problems here. CW isn't just an operating mode - it's a language, and the test already includes one language, so testing for knowledge of a language isn't anything new. There's NEVER been a test of CW operating mode, technique or ability - just proficiency with the language of International Morse. Since one must demonstrate proficiency with another language (English) to obtain a license, it's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:15:26 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Dip****. If code is the only way to go, why are you using text for your usenet messages? Can you say "Hypocrite" If text is the only way to go, why do you speak? Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"? |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
I think you have to refer to people like Al as "Code Nazis" as they want
to force it on everyone, they try to make it into something it is not, they think code is a cure for what ails the amateur service, and the only way to salvation is through the code. Anyone who is not on the code bandwagon is unfit for the amateur service and needs to be eliminated. "All hail the code!" - NOT! Al Klein wrote: If text is the only way to go, why do you speak? Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"? |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 10 Jul 2006 19:53:45 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 18:40:07 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: but it is load of bullto say Morse is a language Your opinion, not that of those who can converse in it. my opinion yes but also a fact Morse code is no more a language than Crillic is Yes, I know your opinion. That still makes it just your opinion. it is simply an alphabet No more than ASL is "just an alphabet". (BTW, those who actually study the subject consider both Morse and ASL to be languages.) you can exchange a limited amount of info using the stand codes but you can say "do you walk or run by the sea" in morse to any one that does not speak or read english first Neither can you communicate with someone in ASL if they don't understand English. So? That still doesn't stop ASL from being a language. you are simply spreading ignorance al That you don't know something doesn't make it the ignorance of others. no such requirement exists indeed if you can read then the question and answers are suposed to read to you and your aswers taken down Languageless? yes indeed although it easier if you do understand english not required So if you don't understand English you can still answer English questions. Interesting. not suree if you can take the test in spanish I'm sure - you can. But one thing's for sure - it has to be in SOME language. You MUST demonstrate proficiency in at least ONE language to get a license, even today. nope no such requirement exists not for techs not generals and not extras either Stop arguing and start thinking. Your claim - that one doesn't have to know any language to pass the test - is nonsense. indeed you point out the way you can get a license without demtating skill with english if you simply memroize all the questions and answers In what language? their remains no requirement that you understand the content, that task is easier if you know english but not a requirement You can understand the content if you don't understand any language? How? where is this requirement for lang skill in part 97? Part 97 itself. A code test is demonstrating proficiency in two languages - not a major step. expect you are never required to demostrate profiicentcy in any language at all Which you are. You're just arguing, not thinking. and if you were 2 languages would twice one and Code is NOT a langauage just an alphabet Again, your opinion, not the opinion of language experts. Indeeded the ignorance of Hams that spread such tales have been one of the tools the No Code movement has been using against you The reason the FCC is dropping the code requirement has absolutely nothing to do with any "movement" or any lame argument like "you don't have to understand any language to pass the test". |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:42:38 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote: No Al, CW is a mode not a language. You're arguing against experts in the field of language, not against me. Are you seriously this ignorant? Are you? Just about any language on the planet can use the mode CW which makes it not a language. Any language can be signed - but ASL is a recognized (by the experts) language. Which nullifies that argument. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
J. D. B. wrote: I think you have to refer to people like Al as "Code Nazis" as they want to force it on everyone, they try to make it into something it is not, they think code is a cure for what ails the amateur service, and the only way to salvation is through the code. Anyone who is not on the code bandwagon is unfit for the amateur service and needs to be eliminated. "All hail the code!" - NOT! indeed and I have from time to time spread any lie and deciet in there cause |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Brenda Ann wrote: "Al Klein" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:42:38 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Any language can be signed - but ASL is a recognized (by the experts) language. Which nullifies that argument. CW is not a language, it is a mode. I think what is being confused here is Morse code, and in particular much of the Morse shorthand used in the CW mode (and, for that matter, in much of phone mode as well). Those ARE a language of sorts. they are a jargon but they can comincate the rnanage of expression twith someone that does not share with the same underlying language that Al needing to glofiy his favortie mode chooses to over look it's limits (and prehaps it has no limits for him and can indeed express everything he wants to express on the air) |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 19:53:45 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: you are simply spreading ignorance al That you don't know something doesn't make it the ignorance of others. no such requirement exists indeed if you can read then the question and answers are suposed to read to you and your aswers taken down Languageless? yes indeed although it easier if you do understand english not required So if you don't understand English you can still answer English questions. Interesting. all that is required is getting the right answers down on the answer sheet how the test taker manages that (other than cheating) is up the take of the test one of the options understanding the lang of the question is merely one or the options the best one for the ARS but for example MY wife did not understand some the question on her tech test using the fact I know something of how the test is asembled and graded she was able to fill correctly some of the ansers by looking for a patern in the in answers of the questions she could understand without this test taking skill ( avarient of skill taught in some corners for passing other tests) she would not be a ham today and yet she was able to help set up at FD this year and make some contact and has been able to devolpe soe of the skill needd in the ARS, enough to be complmented on her skill duiring reccent local emergency here in the area. i was busy geting theour aux power back online and adjusted to the loads I wanted carried and she used the radio (and helped by reading a a few reading fromt he station back to me as I worked on stablizing our household systems My wife does not understand a great deal of the content of the messages she relayed, such understanding was not required in order to be of assitance On her own she has slowly been feling her way into the preveldges offered by her license, amsuingly to those that know me she is developing some talnet for Morse Code and and has been making a qso's in that mode but due being still clumsy and a more than bit of test anxiety has been unable to pass a test that and the fact the tone the arrl uses gives her a headache and the ARRL will not alow another tone to used without the report of an audiologist (at a cost of about 2k) means she will wait tille the FCC acts to get an HF license like I am waiting |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do theright thing.
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:15:26 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Dip****. If code is the only way to go, why are you using text for your usenet messages? Can you say "Hypocrite" If text is the only way to go, why do you speak? Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"? Can't you spell any better than that? So, Al. Can you tell us how many receivers or transmitters have you built from scratch? Not from a kit, or someone else's design, but from scratch? Drew a block diagram that was converted to a real schematic one block at a time where you did all the math, laid out the chassis, cut and drilled all the holes and built the equipment all by yourself? What is the biggest transmitter you've ever built or used? I'm a disabled now, but I worked in broadcast, and built telemetry equipment that is in use all over the world, and in orbit. Tell us, what can you do other than whine? Have you ever built a commercial TV station from scratch? Have you ever maintained a 5 MW EIRP UHF plant with a 1700 foot+ tower? Had the fun of finding parts for a transmitter that haven't been made for 15 years while managing to stay on the air? I found CW boring years ago, and have some hearing problems so I said to hell with Morse code and got involved in the equipment design end of things. It was more fun for me to develop a design and built it, get it aligned and working, then move on to the next design. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 11 Jul 2006 09:24:44 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: they are a jargon but they can comincate the rnanage of expression twith Something you obviously haven't learned to do yet. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 11 Jul 2006 09:24:44 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: they are a jargon but they can comincate the rnanage of expression twith Something you obviously haven't learned to do yet. did you have any point to make? OTOH your coment does prove my point that being even know that demonstarting langiuauge is NOT a requiremnt for a license |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:49:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"? Can't you spell any better than that? A spelling flame! I'm vanquished! So, Al. Can you tell us how many receivers or transmitters have you built from scratch? Not from a kit, or someone else's design, but from scratch? Drew a block diagram that was converted to a real schematic one block at a time where you did all the math, laid out the chassis, cut and drilled all the holes and built the equipment all by yourself? 3 receivers, about a dozen transmitters. Oh, yes, and the automation system of the Hong Kong Space Museum planetarium, the old Amtrak ticket printer, some software that's in use in over 50,000 installations around the world ... But I'm not the typical ham, I've been a design engineer for a long time. What is the biggest transmitter you've ever built or used? I'm a disabled now, but I worked in broadcast Never built anything over a kilowatt, but engineered some pretty hefty ones. (Ch. 40 in Waterbury CT, WWRL, WHN, a few others.) (You remind me of an IBM HR department of old. They always wanted to know the largest program the applicant ever wrote. Someone legitimately told them, back when software was a few k, that he'd written a 3 meg program. It was a translation program with a 3 meg dictionary. You're playing "mine is bigger than yours.") Tell us, what can you do other than whine? Have you ever built a commercial TV station from scratch? All by myself, no. Ever build a planetarium automation system all by yourself from scratch (including inventing some of the technology - which is still, after 30 years, state of the art)? But I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest with you. If you were mentally as old as you claim your body to be you wouldn't have started one. I found CW boring years ago, and have some hearing problems so I said to hell with Morse code and got involved in the equipment design end of things. It was more fun for me to develop a design and built it, get it aligned and working, then move on to the next design. Since I totally depend on 2 4 channel BTE aids, I can't receive CW that easily any more, but that's not a good reason for the FCC to drop the requirement. It's not even a bad reason. But when anyone can guess well enough to pass the "technical" part of the exam, the license isn't worth much. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do theright thing.
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:49:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"? Can't you spell any better than that? A spelling flame! I'm vanquished! Not really, I just hate needless abbreviations, and even more so as my vision gets worse. So, Al. Can you tell us how many receivers or transmitters have you built from scratch? Not from a kit, or someone else's design, but from scratch? Drew a block diagram that was converted to a real schematic one block at a time where you did all the math, laid out the chassis, cut and drilled all the holes and built the equipment all by yourself? 3 receivers, about a dozen transmitters. Oh, yes, and the automation system of the Hong Kong Space Museum planetarium, the old Amtrak ticket printer, some software that's in use in over 50,000 installations around the world ... But I'm not the typical ham, I've been a design engineer for a long time. I was asked a number of times why I didn't have a degree in EE. When I found a problem, or saw something that needed improved I didn't just run crying to the MEs. I researched the problem and wrote up a detailed report. I found the way to correct the problem, found a source for any part we didn't already stock, and submitted it directly to the engineer responsible for that item. After a while they would just flip through my paperwork and submit it to be typed up on the proper forms, then sign it off. I had planned to go to college and get my degree, but my time in the Army threw those plans out the window. What is the biggest transmitter you've ever built or used? I'm a disabled now, but I worked in broadcast Never built anything over a kilowatt, but engineered some pretty hefty ones. (Ch. 40 in Waterbury CT, WWRL, WHN, a few others.) (You remind me of an IBM HR department of old. They always wanted to know the largest program the applicant ever wrote. Someone legitimately told them, back when software was a few k, that he'd written a 3 meg program. It was a translation program with a 3 meg dictionary. You're playing "mine is bigger than yours.") Not really, but a lot of guys have never done anything more than solder a microphone plug to a cable, and then use those crappy solderless coax connectors. Actually, I'm always happy to meet a ham with some real electronics skills. I meet a lot of retired hams here near Ocala, and very few of them know any electronics. I hear the same I could through together a CW rig from scratch in an emergency, then they admit they don't even have an old ARRL handbook to look up a schematic, or any parts. One told me he would use parts from his TV set, that the horizontal output tube and a few other parts would put him on the air. He didn't even know that his six month old TV only had one tube, and I've never seen a transmitter built from a CRT and salvaged, unmarked SMD parts. Biggest isn't the goal, but a long term large project is always interesting. I always liked a challenge, and left the easy jobs for everyone else. Tell us, what can you do other than whine? Have you ever built a commercial TV station from scratch? All by myself, no. Ever build a planetarium automation system all by yourself from scratch (including inventing some of the technology - which is still, after 30 years, state of the art)? But I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest with you. If you were mentally as old as you claim your body to be you wouldn't have started one. I never built anything like that, but I did repair some electronics for the manager of the planetarium at the Orlando Science Center years ago. I have worked on numerous industrial control systems, as well. Sounds like it was a bit of a challenge. Good for you. :) My next couple projects are an electric gate controller, and a motorized flag pole, both with custom controllers with 100 MHz Ethernet interfaces so i can run them from any computer on my home network. I have about 50' of used TV tower in storage. I'm going to weld angle iron up two legs and use a motorized trolley to raise and lower the flag. The gate openers are a pair of used 24" sat tv jacks with a custom controller, a web cam, and an emergency open button that sets off the security system as the gate opens. I found CW boring years ago, and have some hearing problems so I said to hell with Morse code and got involved in the equipment design end of things. It was more fun for me to develop a design and built it, get it aligned and working, then move on to the next design. Since I totally depend on 2 4 channel BTE aids, I can't receive CW that easily any more, but that's not a good reason for the FCC to drop the requirement. It's not even a bad reason. But when anyone can guess well enough to pass the "technical" part of the exam, the license isn't worth much. What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to design and test RF equipment? Not the "I don't do solder" types, but people with a real love of electronic design? I've always had a severe dropout in my hearing that made it impossible to listen to CW for more than a few minutes at a time. I would end up with headaches, some that lasted for days. I finally threw in the towel and went into other areas of electronics. I wanted to learn microwave communications. Along the way I worked in Broadcast and Two way radio servicing. My last job was building commercial microwave receivers at Microdyne. They were custom built from base models for the customers application, on whatever band or segment they needed, and with IF and video bandwidths from 10 KHz to 40 MHz. In a place like that you would have thought there would be a lot of hams, but I only found about a dozen still licensed, and not one who was still active. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Michael A. Terrell wrote: Al Klein wrote: What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to design and test RF equipment? Not the "I don't do solder" types, but people with a real love of electronic design? I've always had a severe dropout in my hearing that made it impossible to listen to CW for more than a few minutes at a time. I would end up with headaches, some that lasted for days. I finally threw in the towel and went into other areas of electronics. I wanted to learn microwave communications. Along the way I worked in Broadcast and Two way radio servicing. i hear you on the headaches I remmebr them from my teen aged efforts at Morse amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal I can in fat qso in the mode using pc with a spectrographic display to allow me to look at the parts of the signal I can't read with the pc |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:00:47 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Al Klein wrote: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:49:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"? Can't you spell any better than that? A spelling flame! I'm vanquished! Not really, I just hate needless abbreviations, and even more so as my vision gets worse. It wasn't an abbreviation, it was a comment. From an old poster we had in high school - "Six munce ago I cun't evun spel injunere, now I ar wun." I had planned to go to college and get my degree, but my time in the Army threw those plans out the window. Then I'm glad I chose the Navy. You're playing "mine is bigger than yours.") One told me he would use parts from his TV set, that the horizontal output tube and a few other parts would put him on the air. There have been many people on the air thanks to a 6BG6 or similar. He didn't even know that his six month old TV only had one tube, and I've never seen a transmitter built from a CRT and salvaged, unmarked SMD parts. Interesting idea, though - a CRT as a final with an inherent monitor. I wonder how much RF output you can drive a CRT to. And, if you made it AM, would that be "focused" modulation? Or, if you were listening to the flyback, "high sing modulation"? I never built anything like that, but I did repair some electronics for the manager of the planetarium at the Orlando Science Center years ago. I'll take a stab - a Minolta projector? I doubt it's a Zeiss. What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to design and test RF equipment? That was the whole idea behind the Tech ticket - minimal CW that anyone could get to in a few weeks and enough written exam to prove that you knew electronics. Anyone who can design or test RF equipment should be able to draw a few schematics. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote: amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to what's being said. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to what's being said. **** off It is painfully obvious you are nothing but ahter of Ham radio and yet you matian a license and go around bashing real hams interted in the future of the service |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
an old freind trashed the English language yet again: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Al Klein wrote: What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to design and test RF equipment? Not the "I don't do solder" types, but people with a real love of electronic design? I've always had a severe dropout in my hearing that made it impossible to listen to CW for more than a few minutes at a time. I would end up with headaches, some that lasted for days. I finally threw in the towel and went into other areas of electronics. I wanted to learn microwave communications. Along the way I worked in Broadcast and Two way radio servicing. i hear you on the headaches I remmebr them from my teen aged efforts at Morse "efforts"...?!?! "efforts" suggests that you did something that actually required, well, EFFORT! We all know that was wasted bandwidth! amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal The PROBLEM, Morkie, is that the guys sending the Morse are doing it in ENGLISH, and you're trying to "hear" it in Morkiese. The two don't exchange well. I can in fat qso in the mode using pc with a spectrographic display to allow me to look at the parts of the signal I can't read with the pc What's a "fat qso", Mork..?!? And using a "...spectrographic display to allow (you) to look at the parts of the signal (you) can't read with the pc...?!?! More Morkie Mularkie. Steve, K4YZ |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 13 Jul 2006 20:10:23 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote: It is painfully obvious you are nothing but ahter of Ham radio and yet you matian a license and go around bashing real hams I'm bashing you - what do you have to do with "real hams"? interted in the future of the service Really? So how many computer languages are YOU fluent in? |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote in
: On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to what's being said. That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too, "Mark, Why don't you listen." SC |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Slow Code wrote: Al Klein wrote in : On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to what's being said. That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too, "Mark, Why don't you listen." lying again My teacher never said ANYTHING about morse code but your other name is "Hey Stupid" SC |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
an old freind wrote: Slow Code wrote: Al Klein wrote in : On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to what's being said. That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too, "Mark, Why don't you listen." lying again My teacher never said ANYTHING about morse code but your other name is "Hey Stupid" True, Markie was in the Special Ed classes and they tend not to actually call their retarded students "retards." |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 14 Jul 2006 17:11:09 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote: Slow Code wrote: That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too, "Mark, Why don't you listen." lying again My teacher never said ANYTHING about morse code And he didn't claim that they did. You evidently have a problem with understanding - not just CW but anything you read in any medium. |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 14 Jul 2006 17:11:09 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: Slow Code wrote: That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too, "Mark, Why don't you listen." lying again My teacher never said ANYTHING about morse code And he didn't claim that they did. You evidently have a problem with understanding - not just CW but anything you read in any medium. "That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too" is what ihe typed and what you just lied about you are dishonest but most of the CW advocates are |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
"Not Cocksucker Lloyd" wrote in
ups.com: an old freind wrote: Slow Code wrote: Al Klein wrote in : On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to what's being said. That's what his teachers said in grade school spelling class too, "Mark, Why don't you listen." lying again My teacher never said ANYTHING about morse code but your other name is "Hey Stupid" True, Markie was in the Special Ed classes and they tend not to actually call their retarded students "retards." LOL, Markie rode the short bus to school. Sc |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Slow Code wrote: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" wrote in ups.com: True, Markie was in the Special Ed classes and they tend not to actually call their retarded students "retards." LOL, Markie rode the short bus to school. nope infact I as far as I recall I never rode a bus to school at all other than I did try a few times geting to college on the city bus system it took way to long and saved very little (but gas cheaper then) Sc |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
|
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 17 Jul 2006 05:47:47 -0700,
wrote: an old freind wrote: other than I did try a few times geting to college on the city bus system it took way to long and saved very little (but gas cheaper then) You were never in college, retard. Maybe barber college. You'd let him near you with a sharp instrument? :) |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On 17 Jul 2006 05:47:47 -0700, wrote: an old freind wrote: other than I did try a few times geting to college on the city bus system it took way to long and saved very little (but gas cheaper then) You were never in college, retard. Maybe barber college. You'd let him near you with a sharp instrument? :) Wisemen has been near me he never ventures out of his home for fear somebody will get him I would say he was being paraoid but in his case with the filth he spewed and the other deeds he pulled he may indeed have reason to fear |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 17 Jul 2006 05:47:47 -0700, wrote: an old freind wrote: other than I did try a few times geting to college on the city bus system it took way to long and saved very little (but gas cheaper then) You were never in college, retard. Maybe barber college. You'd let him near you with a sharp instrument? :) Wisemen has been near me he never ventures out of his home for fear somebody will get him Wrong, Marqueer. I would say he was being paraoid but in his case with the filth he spewed and the other deeds he pulled he may indeed have reason to fear But you aren't qualified to say anything, high school dropout. You are projecting again, mentally ill retard. Why are you hiding up in the U.P.? |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:
get help sicko But you aren't qualified to say anything, high school dropout. You are projecting again, mentally ill retard. Why are you hiding up in the U.P.? Of Course I am qualified I am college gard and licese of the ARS Hiding no Living here it is lovely county |
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote: Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: get help sicko But you aren't qualified to say anything, high school dropout. You are projecting again, mentally ill retard. Why are you hiding up in the U.P.? Of Course I am qualified I am college gard and licese of the ARS We've yet to see any proof. Let's see, you can't communicate in any resemblance of English and you have the beginner's ham license. So much for your expertise. Hiding no Living here it is lovely county Yes, you are hiding from something, perhaps your child molesting past? Is that why you high-tailed it out of Illiopolis, IL? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com