wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

How is a non-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations any
different from an ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, Len?

Non-ARRL histories of ALL RADIO regulations don't have the
obvious political spin that ARRL uses to attempt increasing
its membership.

What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

That's just the way it is...

That's just *your* spin, Len.

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can.

So go ahead.

But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more.

A day or so for you ;-)

Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all. And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Nor does it make regulations.

It certainly tries to! Tries to for a MINORITY of licensed
radio amateurs in the USA.

FCC makes the regulations.

ARRL tries to get FCC to change or keep certain regulations. So
do others like NCI. Yet NCI has a membership of perhaps one percent
of licensed US amateurs.

There were "other groups" back in the 1940s, Len.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

Do you know the name of those groups and what they tried to change?

It's just a HOBBY, Jimmie.

Not *just*, Len. Whatever it is, you're not part of it.

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Did you expect that everyone had to build everything themselves?!?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes do. You wouldn't know about
that since you've never done it.

Plain and simple WRONG, Jimmie.

You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Do you expect sailors to all get sheet steel and torches and
build the ship they are going to serve on?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes build their equipment from
the most basic parts - including sheet metal work. You wouldn't know
about that since you've never done it.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

Do you expect airmen to all get aluminum and engines and build
the aircraft they are going to serve on?

Of course not.

Why not? I've helped do that...and I'm NOT an "airman." :-)

Do you expect choo-choo drivers to build their locomotives
themselves? :-)

"Choo-choo drivers"?

What you call "locomotive engineers."

That's what everyone who knows what they're talking about calls them,
Len.

Did they go to "engineering
school" for their degrees? :-)

Actually, they do go to school and are licensed for the job.

I just disregarded any
NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever
required to use it in the military or in the much longer
civilian life career I still have.

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

Since no higher deity commanded that morse code testing be
done for amateur radio licenses, ordinary humans must have
done it. Whatever humans have done, humans can UNDO.

Not necessarily. Humans seem to have trouble undoing certain
types of messes, such as pollution.

Yes, the morse code test is still in USA amateur regulations,
POLLUTING the environment for newcomer hobbyists.

There's your antimorse spin!

Of course - because you are not qualified to do it on-the-air.

Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in
Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed
employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer
during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network
to use all tone switching for routing without using any
microprocessor control.

Gosh, you *listened*! I've done a lot more than that!

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That doesn't agree with www.hamdata.com figures.

I didn't use those figures.

Not good enough for you? Hamdata gets theirs right from the
FCC database. Where does Speroni get his? Crystal ball? :-)

AH0A gets his numbers direct from the FCC database. But I don't
use AH0A's numbers.

hamdata.com's numbers include expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses. The numbers I use do not.

Is that a threat, Len? You're not even a novice at amateur radio.

Why are you afraid of perceived "threats?"

So you admit it was a threat...

Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME.

SO why shouldn't it change?

This newsgroup/morseblog isn't about zoning ordinances or real
estate, Jimmie.

Not is it about the military, or aerospace, or your jobs, Len. But you
go on
and on about those subjects.

Nor is it about trailer living...wherein
trailers can be towed someplace else for "change." :-)

I've lived at this same residental address for 42 years,

Does that mean you think you have the right to dictate what others can
do with their land?

Some of my neighbors have lived in their for
longer. Why should we "change?"

I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

Especially for some
easterner who doesn't know the territory, doesn't know
the neighborhood, doesn't know any neighbors, doesn't do
anything but try to make trouble for those who have
opinions on amateur radio testing other than his? :-)

I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself. Just like the outsider
developer who came into your neighborhood and tried to change the
zoning, you try to change the amateur radio rules.

At least the developer was willing to become part of the neighborhood
by purchasing the land. You folks drove him bankrupt. But you aren't
even a part of amateur radio, yet you want the rules changed.

You resisted change to zoning, but you ridicule and call names
of anyone who tries to resist change to amateur radio regulation.

See your double standard? Others have to adapt, not you.

btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

Now it's clear. You weren't top of the form in Morse Code, so the
code must be a bad thing....

Plainly and simply inaccurate and plainly and simply just your
personal insult mode trying vainly to masquerade as "civil"
discussion.

What's inaccurate about it?

And where's the insult?

The mask is quite transparent. We can all see
through it. Take it off, it will be more comfortable for you.

Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean. You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

Yes, radiotelegraphy was used by many,

Indeed!

but it was
NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

Teleprinting was necessary then
and it was used for the majority of military, government,
and commercial messaging around the globe. That's just the
way it was...

So what? Does that mean *amateurs* shouldn't use Morse Code?

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change. Just like that developer....

I've just never had to USE any radiotelegraphy skills nor
wired telegraphy skills for ANY REASON...and I was DOING
long-distance HF communications before your existance.

"Existence".

You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.