N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:
This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way:
Unfortunately, it does NOT.
Yes it does! ;-)
All it points out is that you are using
this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject
instead of focussing on amateur radio policy.
I think you don't like the fact that it does relate.
In the end, Who cares?
Len obviously cares a lot.
It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to
talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants
to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors,
then "it's all good, man".
I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an
unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just
isn't.
I like the little side trips. It allows us to
get to know each other better.
Perhaps that's what bothers Len so much.
The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that
focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see
proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset.
Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone
else
You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license?
If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed
mean
that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else"
and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of
some imagined god-inspired "service").
Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a
lowering of standards.
Is there something wrong with that?
All because you met some
test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even
older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram.
You sure do pontificate on other's motivations.
Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old
cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego.
I don't know that one?
http://www.geocities.com/fearlessfly2003/
He was part of the Milton the Monster show. There was trend at that
time, for goofy superheros.
Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^)
See below.
As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative
emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your
personal mindsets on all others.
What's your suggestion, Len?
Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it
was a
lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for
you?
You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you
are to a gated community of homes costing much more.
Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about
off topic matters!
We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Unless we support the
elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's
OK with Len.
He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then!
Would you like it if someone
wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less
valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in
a
territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to
enforce your
personal mindset on others.
Not a good thing since the FCC
is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires
nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity.
That's *your* mindset speaking
Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for
Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service.
Then why do you use the term?
Nobody else does.
Removal of the morse test does
NOT "dumb anything down"
That's not what I wrote.
I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would.
Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists
today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while
someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped.
But it's just different, not harder.
I disagree, but see below for the discussion.
But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the
standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the
right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards.
Yep. Particularly since hams still use Morse Code.
And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do.
All depends what results you want.
Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes
sense
for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications.
It's really that simple.
but rather makes the amateur hobby
more open,
In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of
amateur
radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years.
And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just
allow thier licenses to expire?
Nobody really knows. One reason the number of Techs/TechPluses is shrinking is
expirations like that. Another is upgrades. In another 5 years and 3-1/2
months, all the Tech Pluses will be gone.
Regardless of the specific reasons, they allowed their licenses to
lapse. If the no-code test system were any kind of success, there would
not be a falloff like that.
The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur
allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum.
Yep.
So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the
Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to
Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by
and large don't.
Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not
bring anything to the ARS.
freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined
"amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and
practices that date back to seven decades ago.
Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code
seven decades ago? You're wrong about that.
"You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur
radio.
Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-)
What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the
rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we
don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable?
And now we just may be approaching motive?
Yep. Notice how Len never describes in detail what he thinks the rules for the
ARS should be. It's like a Zen exercise - he'll tell you what he thinks amateur
radio license requirements should not be, but he won't tell you what he thinks
they should be.
If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from
everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of
Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but
the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS
license numbers thread, where he starts out with
Lenof21 Well, Herr Gruppekommandant, it's time to "show you my papers"
Lenof21 and confess all -
Lots of analysis fodder.
"You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from
communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations.
That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS
all
you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party.
OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC
feldwebel". You are.
Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self
fornication.
Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target...
That is one I would like to forget.
"You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything
else.
What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up?
Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality.
Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to
impose on everyone else?
Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to
express
their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers
and
newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc.
Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^)
Yep.
And now for the Very Basic Concept:
In the early days of radio, operation of any sort of radio set required
considerable technical knowledge and operating skills. The level required was
so high, and the equipment so fussy, that "radio operator" quickly became a
speciality in itself. Professional radio operators did it for money, amateur
radio operators did it for fun, but the skills and knowledge were needed to get
the equipment to work at all. That's ultimately why licenses were required - to
make sure those on the air had needed skills and knowledge.
Even operating a receiver took a lot of skill.
Over time, technological progress improved radio sets in all sorts of ways.
Cost came down, reliability went up, all sorts of technical benchmarks were met
and surpassed.
Some improvements were aimed at making the sets perform better. Other focused
on reducing the level of skill needed to operate them. Compare a BC receiver
from the early 1920s with one from the late 1930s, and the differences are
striking. What was once a large, expensive, complex device running on batteries
and requiring careful adjustment of multiple controls just to hear a local
broadcast became a small box with only two controls.
Similar things happened in "two-way" radio, but over a longer time span. The
goals were similar: improve the technical performance, and reduce the level of
skill needed to operate them.
In the latter area, the ultimate goal was to completely eliminate the need for
a skilled radio operator. In order for this to happen, operations were
channelized, automation was incorporated to a high degree, and modes were
chosen that did not require special operator skills.
A prime example of this is the land mobile radio services, using VHF/UHF FM
voice. The first-generation sets were expensive and complex by the standards of
the time - but almost anyone could use the sets. Push to talk, volume, squelch.
Maybe a four-position channel selector. No tuning, no adjustments, clear FM
audio. And no radio operator.
Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator
needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in
itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system,
they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits.
This is where amateur radio diverges sharply from other services, and becomes
unique in many ways. Removing the skilled radio operator would eliminate what
we're all about, which is "radio for its own sake". That's why so many hams
want to keep the standards high. Because if they are lost, what's left isn't
amateur radio.
It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if
not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do
so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be!
And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants
to destroy.
There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said.
- Mike KB3EIA -