RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 17th 04, 09:34 PM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

More spectrum is simply the reward system in use. It was chosen in large
part
because it's easy to enforce.

Not only was it easy to enforce but it was selected because it was a
desireable enough reward that people would put in the training to get it.

Utter nonsense, Mama Dee. Spin-like rationalization.

That's a good description of what you post here, Len ;-) ;-) ;-)

Only to the PCTA.

Nope. To anyone who knows the facts.

Dee regurges so much pathertic ARRL-speak it just can't read her
anymore.

AMATEUR radio is a hobby, not a national service, not an arm of the
United States Navy or the rest of the military, and not a public safety
organization. Just a hobby involving radio.

It's not "just a hobby".

For some it IS a lifestyle. Their problem, not the governments.

Why is it a "problem"?

The government doesn't view amateur radio as an alternative lifestyle.
There are no bill in Congress trying for a Constitutional Amendment.
Practicioners of amateur radio will just have to deal with it, that
is, if they view it as an alternative lifestyle.

So, amateur radio is NOT a hobby?

It's not *just* a hobby.

Would you tell volunteer firefighters and EMTs that what they do is "just a
hobby"?

Different things. And they get paid for each run. Only repeaters
owners get paid in amateur radio.

Prove its vital need to the nation as a national service or an arm of
the military or a public safety organization.

Why? Is that the criteria for something to be more than "just a hobby"?

Part of Basis and Purpose justification for being.

The FCC hasn't proved that. Only the ham-lifestylers try to prove
that. They NEED the rationalization.

So what's your problem?

The problem is all the lifestylers that yak and yak, copy field day
messages prior to the start of field day, and paying lip service to
being a national asset, but couldn't NCS their way out of a wet paper
bag.

But even if it were, what's the difference? If something is "just a hobby",
does that mean there should be no standards, no training, no rules?

Tsk, tsk. Arguing to extemes again?

No. Just asking a question.

What should the standards be?

See Part 97, minus the Morse Code exam.

The FCC isn't chartered to do "training" for radio hams.

Actually, it is.

I've never been to an FCC training session. Would you mind mentoring
a junior amateur regarding the place, location, and times? Thanks in
advance.

The FCC doesn't really "set standards," only sets regulations.

Wrong again!

How many parts per million?

AMATEUR radio long ago CEASED to be a "pool of experienced morse
operators" for any national need.

The description never included the word "Morse", Len.

Then why is Morse so prominent in your thinking?

When did it cease, Len?

Long ago. :-)

When, exactly?

Long ago.

Find all the military morsemen "needs" you can. That be easy, as
there are no such needs.

Find all the commercial communications services you can, count
the "needs" for morsemen. Very few and those be on the Great
Lakes shipping.

What's your point, Len?

Do you agree that the nation needs a "Pool of trained radio operators"
which doesn't include Morse?

And here's a fun fact: The Basis and Purpose never used the phrase
"experienced
morse operators". Just "experienced operators" - no mention of modes.

The nation does NOT need morse operators, haven't for a long time.

How long?

Long time. :-)

You don't know, then.

Not since the Coast Guard quit monitoring.

Most rewards in the real world have little relationship to the work
requested.

More spin crappola.

Well, at least you're honest about your content ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Tsk, tsk. Not nice.

No, you're not nice at all, Len. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

And you've gone over to the dark side. ;^)

Rather nasty comment for a portentious
revered one of the Great Gurus of the newsgrope.

Describing yourself, I see.

In kind.

lots of snit snipped

Just face the reality of the matter. Morsemen got their little CW
playground and should be happy.

What *are* you talking about, Len?

The LOWER parts of the HF bands.

You mean the parts where voice modes aren't allowed? Guess what - they're all
wide open for data modes, too. What's the problem?

Reilly says band plans are actionable. Do you now disagree with
Reilly, too?

You sure have been disagreeable of late.

Professional communicators they
ain't, even if they want, desperately, to be oh, so very pro.

If you're an example of "professional communicator", than I'm glad to be an
amateur.

You are NOT a professional communicator.

Never claimed to be.

Just don't forget it. You're just a guy who refuses to accept that
professional communicators know something about all of radio.

You're neither are a professional communicator nor an amateur radio operator,
Len. Just some guy who likes to flame amateur radio newsgroups.

Len is a professional. You just refuse to accept it. That makes you
wrong. That is all. And it won't be the first time.

You're on the outside looking in.

I'm on the inside, yet I see Len's point.