RadioBanter - You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Swap (https://www.radiobanter.com/swap/)

- - You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test. (https://www.radiobanter.com/swap/99498-youre-not-real-ham-if-you-never-took-passed-code-test.html)

You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS

Regarding Ham Hobby :

.... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... ---
.... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ...

Jack

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"an old freind" wrote in
oups.com:

cmdr buzz corey wrote:
an old idiot wrote:

sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts
are supposed to be

Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is
called a hobby.
red herring alert

Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules

WE define Ham radio

And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy?

Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. Look at
the childish bull**** you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove
everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor.

That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more
like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have.

Sc

You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:36:37 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.

Why learn arithmetic or math at all? Spelling and grammar seem to be
old-fashioned. Letz ghuct spel theengs thu wae thay soun. Maybe we
can even make ourselves understood once in a great while that way.

Digital modes are great - for someone who spells the words you
understand the way you were taught to spell them. CW seems to work no
matter what the accent or native tongue.

But people don't want to learn digital modes either - it's just one of
those things that sounds like a good argument until you actually look
at it. How many hams can actually read a waterfall display for
anything but PSK? And not that many can even do that.

You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:36:37 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.

Why learn arithmetic or math at all? Spelling and grammar seem to be
old-fashioned. Letz ghuct spel theengs thu wae thay soun. Maybe we
can even make ourselves understood once in a great while that way.
indeed sir consist spelling is something that is barely more half again
as old as radio

Digital modes are great - for someone who spells the words you
understand the way you were taught to spell them. CW seems to work no
matter what the accent or native tongue.
funny thing that property how all the cw people claim they can't read
text the monet it is mispelled but they can read CW all the time no
matter the lang

But people don't want to learn digital modes either - it's just one of
those things that sounds like a good argument until you actually look
at it. How many hams can actually read a waterfall display for
anything but PSK? And not that many can even do that.
really then why I am racking EME qso's my station needs ground gain to
complete the contacts so I get only about 40 minute at moon rise and
moon set but I have bagged a QSO everytime I have tried (and near the
New Moon at that)

You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS

Jack Ricci wrote:
Regarding Ham Hobby :

... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... ---
... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ...
maybe sent that Slow code otherwise known as Mr Stupid (his own choice
of nick

will getit but I doubt it

Jack

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"an old freind" wrote in
oups.com:

cmdr buzz corey wrote:
an old idiot wrote:

sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts
are supposed to be

Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is
called a hobby.
red herring alert

Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules

WE define Ham radio

And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy?

Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. Look at
the childish bull**** you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove
everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor.

That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more
like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have.

Sc

You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.

Al Klein wrote:

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

And what is wrong with that?

Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

How does "passing tests" going to eliminate the problem?

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's

How does memorizing answers to "technical questions" make you a better ham?

that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke.

Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes

At least we agree on something and nice to see you admit that everyone
is now saying this.

have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

Yup, it is a simple circuit. It's also readily available in books, the
Internet, etc., so how does memorizing the circuit to pass a test, make
you a better ham?

Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

"Rayleigh Fading" - that comes up in daily discussions on the radio.
Never heard anyone complaining about not being able to run 9600 baud on
HF - who the heck to you hang around with?

And no more published answers.

Why not? Memorizing answers has people learning just like reading a
book. Learning is learning.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff".

That's true, many of the things I had to learn for my test in the 1970s
was worthless in my opinion. But it was conceived by people who had the
same outdated opinion as you. Let's get people communicating and not
continue to figure out ways to make it so hard that new people do not
come into the service. Here's the choice for kids today. Learn code and
other crap to get a license to use a ham radio - or - get on the
Internet immediately where everyone is and communicate with them. Guess
what choice is being made Al - it's a no brainer and why our testing
should be a no brainer.

Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

So what? They will seek out the answers and learn on their own.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work,

You know that's true and some will seek answers, others won't.
or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground.

I won't because those discussions never come up in our area. Where the
heck do you live that you have these discussions with so many people?
Arkansas or Mississippi?

His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

Something tells me he'll figure it out on his own, via another ham, the
Internet, etc. and he'll learn - learning without being forced is a
wonderful thing.

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago -

Yup, that's true, and all those strict technical tests back then did not
prevent this from occuring.

but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers.

No proof of that statement Al. Just something in your own mind.

"I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Is this a great country or what?

You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:35:37 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

So which is *really* the best gauge to model? Is it okay if you buy
kits, or aren't you a real rail hobbyist unless you make at least all
your cars from scratch? Or do you have to build your own engines from
scratch too? Etc., etc.

No Al, those are not arguments that take place with the model train
hobby. The best scale is what is best for you. Unlike ham radio, no one
tries to ram something down another hobbyist's throat. Same for buy vs.
build. Not a discussion. You do what you want to do and no one is
critical of the other. The way it should be in ham radio.

That's the way it *is* in ham radio if you look at it through the same
glasses you're looking at model railroading through. You want to use
different scales to weigh the same thing, then claim it weighs a
different amount? Sorry, but I don't play that game.

You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:51:19 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

And what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with ham radio being turned into CB? For one thing, we
already had a couple of citizen's bands - we didn't need a dozen more.

Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

How does "passing tests" going to eliminate the problem?

For them? It's not. If they can't pass the test they don't get the
privilege. That's just the way life is. If you're not 75 inches
tall, we don't let you be 6'3". These days some people want to be
what they aren't, regardless of reality. Giving ham licenses to
anyone who wants one doesn't make hams of people who know nothing, it
makes the ham license worthless.

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's

How does memorizing answers to "technical questions" make you a better ham?

I said it doesn't. I said that learning makes you more knowledgeable.

that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke.

Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes

At least we agree on something and nice to see you admit that everyone
is now saying this.

That thing passing over your head was the point.

have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

Yup, it is a simple circuit. It's also readily available in books, the
Internet, etc., so how does memorizing the circuit to pass a test, make
you a better ham?

Understanding how it works makes you more knowledgeable. Evidently
you're one of those who needs things repeated a few times.

Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

"Rayleigh Fading" - that comes up in daily discussions on the radio.
Never heard anyone complaining about not being able to run 9600 baud on
HF - who the heck to you hang around with?

You never listened to QSOs on 20? Or questions asked at ham club
meetings? Or in radio fora?

And no more published answers.

Why not? Memorizing answers has people learning just like reading a
book. Learning is learning.

Learning requires understanding. Memorizing isn't understanding. It
was proved over 100 years ago that rote memorization isn't even a
mediocre way of teaching.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff".

That's true, many of the things I had to learn for my test in the 1970s
was worthless in my opinion. But it was conceived by people who had the
same outdated opinion as you. Let's get people communicating and not
continue to figure out ways to make it so hard that new people do not
come into the service. Here's the choice for kids today. Learn code and
other crap to get a license to use a ham radio - or - get on the
Internet immediately where everyone is and communicate with them. Guess
what choice is being made Al - it's a no brainer and why our testing
should be a no brainer.

So let them get on radio immediately with no testing. The method has
been available since the 60s.

IT'S CALLED CB! You want HF? Get on 11 meters. You want UHF? Get
on 465. It's all there.

And leave ham radio to hams.

Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

So what? They will seek out the answers and learn on their own.

Or, as has happened over the past few decades, they won't. But now
that you said they will ... magic ... they will, eh?

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work,

You know that's true and some will seek answers, others won't.

So those who seek answers become hams - those who don't become CBers.
What's with the "everyone is equal even if the only way to achieve it
is to dumb the entire world down" crap?

or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground.

I won't because those discussions never come up in our area. Where the
heck do you live that you have these discussions with so many people?

In the real world.

His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

Something tells me he'll figure it out on his own, via another ham, the
Internet, etc. and he'll learn - learning without being forced is a
wonderful thing.

Demanding answers without putting in any effort seems to have
substituted for learning.

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago -

Yup, that's true, and all those strict technical tests back then did not
prevent this from occuring.

but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers.

No proof of that statement Al. Just something in your own mind.

About like everything you've said here.

"I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Is this a great country or what?

Yes, if you're in the bottom 10%, it must surely look that way. You
get to be in the top 10% merely because that's the way you want things
to be, and heaven help the rest of us if we don't give you your way.

You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.