If you go though old posts dating back to many moons ago, in this
amateur newsgroup--and others, you can easily see there is a very
defined class system to amateur radio. What may not be openly apparent
is that this is a multi-class system. Now, on the surface of it all,
one is lead to believe this class system relates directly to the class
of license an amateur holds--his knowledge, overall abilities,
personality, intelligence, etc. Yet, some within this class system
have, and just below its' surface, implemented a secondary class of
class system.

This secondary class system relates directly to an individuals ability
to produce a system of taps on a device able to key a transmitter, it is
more motor skills based than any other skill I can possibly relate it to
(like how well one can skate, hula-hoop, hop-scotch, play jacks, hum a
tune, etc.), perhaps better viewed, in the light, as someone capable of
rubbing his head and patting his stomach with few errors in
implementation of the actions and done at a good speed. This secondary
system seems to make no note or make considerations of other skills or
knowledge which a ham possesses into consideration. Indeed, a severely
limited autistic person who had a gift for such tapings, and at least a
minimal ability to communicate by verbal speech and text (brag in speech
and text?), would reign as king and be supreme leader (worshiped?) In
such a class a sheer idiot can brag of genius (and frequently seem to do
so.)

When one reads and understands the premise, goals and purpose that
amateur radio was first established on, its' charter, it can be seen
this class system runs in a perpendicular direction and fashion to the
original purpose(s.)

Interesting, and more a statement to human nature, in my humble viewing
and assessment, than it can possibly be related to anything else,
wouldn't you agree? And, when brought to this light of day and viewed
in its' entirety, it stands rather small in scope, would you not agree,
again?

Some see this as a rather shallow endeavor and are amused by it. Others
seem to poke fun at it in satire. To others, such behavior is
disgusting and revolting to their intelligence, would you deny them
their opinions?

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
If you go though old posts dating back to many moons ago, in this amateur
newsgroup--and others, you can easily see there is a very defined class
system to amateur radio. What may not be openly apparent is that this is
a multi-class system. Now, on the surface of it all, one is lead to
believe this class system relates directly to the class of license an
amateur holds--his knowledge, overall abilities, personality,
intelligence, etc. Yet, some within this class system have, and just
below its' surface, implemented a secondary class of class system.

This secondary class system relates directly to an individuals ability to
produce a system of taps on a device able to key a transmitter, it is more
motor skills based than any other skill I can possibly relate it to (like
how well one can skate, hula-hoop, hop-scotch, play jacks, hum a tune,
etc.), perhaps better viewed, in the light, as someone capable of rubbing
his head and patting his stomach with few errors in implementation of the
actions and done at a good speed. This secondary system seems to make no
note or make considerations of other skills or knowledge which a ham
possesses into consideration. Indeed, a severely limited autistic person
who had a gift for such tapings, and at least a minimal ability to
communicate by verbal speech and text (brag in speech and text?), would
reign as king and be supreme leader (worshiped?) In such a class a sheer
idiot can brag of genius (and frequently seem to do so.)

When one reads and understands the premise, goals and purpose that amateur
radio was first established on, its' charter, it can be seen this class
system runs in a perpendicular direction and fashion to the original
purpose(s.)

Interesting, and more a statement to human nature, in my humble viewing
and assessment, than it can possibly be related to anything else, wouldn't
you agree? And, when brought to this light of day and viewed in its'
entirety, it stands rather small in scope, would you not agree, again?

Some see this as a rather shallow endeavor and are amused by it. Others
seem to poke fun at it in satire. To others, such behavior is disgusting
and revolting to their intelligence, would you deny them their opinions?

Regards,
JS
would it be too much to ask that you not assit him by at least
changing the title of his effort to make people think I am a pedo



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

John Smith wrote in
:

If you go though old posts dating back to many moons ago, in this
amateur newsgroup--and others, you can easily see there is a very
defined class system to amateur radio. What may not be openly apparent
is that this is a multi-class system. Now, on the surface of it all,
one is lead to believe this class system relates directly to the class
of license an amateur holds--his knowledge, overall abilities,
personality, intelligence, etc. Yet, some within this class system
have, and just below its' surface, implemented a secondary class of
class system.

This secondary class system relates directly to an individuals ability
to produce a system of taps on a device able to key a transmitter, it is
more motor skills based than any other skill I can possibly relate it to
(like how well one can skate, hula-hoop, hop-scotch, play jacks, hum a
tune, etc.), perhaps better viewed, in the light, as someone capable of
rubbing his head and patting his stomach with few errors in
implementation of the actions and done at a good speed. This secondary
system seems to make no note or make considerations of other skills or
knowledge which a ham possesses into consideration. Indeed, a severely
limited autistic person who had a gift for such tapings, and at least a
minimal ability to communicate by verbal speech and text (brag in speech
and text?), would reign as king and be supreme leader (worshiped?) In
such a class a sheer idiot can brag of genius (and frequently seem to do
so.)

When one reads and understands the premise, goals and purpose that
amateur radio was first established on, its' charter, it can be seen
this class system runs in a perpendicular direction and fashion to the
original purpose(s.)

Interesting, and more a statement to human nature, in my humble viewing
and assessment, than it can possibly be related to anything else,
wouldn't you agree? And, when brought to this light of day and viewed
in its' entirety, it stands rather small in scope, would you not agree,
again?

Some see this as a rather shallow endeavor and are amused by it. Others
seem to poke fun at it in satire. To others, such behavior is
disgusting and revolting to their intelligence, would you deny them
their opinions?

Regards,
JS


It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get most.
Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor punished,
those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298


It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get most.
Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor punished,
those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?

Here's just one point, and of course, as usual, you'll have no legitimate
reply:

Minimum wage. The GOP states that if the minimum wage is increased, the cost
of everything will rise. Probably so. Of course keeping it low means that
things will cost less, right? Let me see, if we give people a wage that they
can live on, we'll have less people getting welfare, right? Sure, the cost
of a hamburger may go up, but then again, I don't actually need a hamburger,
so I can live with that. And the taxpayers will be getting a break in the
form of less people on welfare. That benefits me and you, right. Stick with
me here SC, I know this thinking for yourself stuff is hard for you, but
I'll try to take it SLOW. These same people will have more cash to spend, so
that helps the economy, right? So, if you and I benefit from an increase in
minimum wage, who loses? Well, it appears big business does, doesn't it?
They are the ones reaping the benefits of low labor costs, while at the same
time raping you and I because their employees cannot sustain themselves
because of an artificially low labor cost.

This is just one point, SC. I know you're out of your league debating, but
do you care to try to dispel this fact?

U-Know-Who wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298

It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get most.
Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor punished,
those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?


You need to ask? Where have you been?

Phil

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
U-Know-Who wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298

It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get most.
Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor
punished,
those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?


You need to ask? Where have you been?

Phil
\\

"Why should anybody have to work for something? It's like saying they don't
DESERVE it."
Calvin & Hobbes, 1995

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:27:18 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298


It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get most.
Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor
punished,
those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?

Here's just one point, and of course, as usual, you'll have no legitimate
reply:

Minimum wage. The GOP states that if the minimum wage is increased, the
cost
of everything will rise. Probably so. Of course keeping it low means that
things will cost less, right? Let me see, if we give people a wage that
they
can live on, we'll have less people getting welfare, right? Sure, the cost
of a hamburger may go up, but then again, I don't actually need a
hamburger,
so I can live with that. And the taxpayers will be getting a break in the
form of less people on welfare. That benefits me and you, right. Stick
with
me here SC, I know this thinking for yourself stuff is hard for you, but
I'll try to take it SLOW. These same people will have more cash to spend,
so
that helps the economy, right? So, if you and I benefit from an increase
in
minimum wage, who loses? Well, it appears big business does, doesn't it?
They are the ones reaping the benefits of low labor costs, while at the
same
time raping you and I because their employees cannot sustain themselves
because of an artificially low labor cost.

This is just one point, SC. I know you're out of your league debating, but
do you care to try to dispel this fact?

well small busness hurts more in mimium wage hike than big Busness Big
bussness being big has more ways of writing of anf otherwise sticking
the reuslts of the wage increase to Goovt and derectly to rest of us
than small bussness

Not saying I am opposed to rasing the wage but and that done with care
it certainly can be good for the economy but your detail are off Tom

Again, you prove my contention that you are indeed a moron. If small
business cannot afford to pay minimum wage, then I don't want to subsidize
them either. They need to find another line of work, or go to work for
someone that can afford to pay minimum wage. Yes, things will cost more.
BFD, people will make more, and fewer people will choose to sit on their
asses and hold their hands out.

"U-Know-Who" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298


It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get
most. Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like
class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor
punished, those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?

Here's just one point, and of course, as usual, you'll have no
legitimate reply:

Minimum wage. The GOP states that if the minimum wage is increased, the
cost of everything will rise. Probably so. Of course keeping it low
means that things will cost less, right? Let me see, if we give people a
wage that they can live on, we'll have less people getting welfare,
right? Sure, the cost of a hamburger may go up, but then again, I don't
actually need a hamburger, so I can live with that. And the taxpayers
will be getting a break in the form of less people on welfare. That
benefits me and you, right. Stick with me here SC, I know this thinking
for yourself stuff is hard for you, but I'll try to take it SLOW. These
same people will have more cash to spend, so that helps the economy,
right? So, if you and I benefit from an increase in minimum wage, who
loses? Well, it appears big business does, doesn't it? They are the ones
reaping the benefits of low labor costs, while at the same time raping
you and I because their employees cannot sustain themselves because of
an artificially low labor cost.

This is just one point, SC. I know you're out of your league debating,
but do you care to try to dispel this fact?


And to think I just thought you were a tiny little ****-ant, I see you're
a whiney ass liberal now too.

Get the government out of the way. Let the market place decide what the
wage will be for any job. If someone wants a job with better pay they
need to compete for it. That would also imply making an effort to better
yourself, so you're better than the person that is also competing for the
job.

And if anyone don't work, they don't eat. It's called taking
responsibility for yourself. Democrats create victims and nurture the
notion that government is the only thing that can take care of you.

SC

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"U-Know-Who" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298


It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get
most. Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er like
class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor
punished, those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?

Here's just one point, and of course, as usual, you'll have no
legitimate reply:

Minimum wage. The GOP states that if the minimum wage is increased, the
cost of everything will rise. Probably so. Of course keeping it low
means that things will cost less, right? Let me see, if we give people a
wage that they can live on, we'll have less people getting welfare,
right? Sure, the cost of a hamburger may go up, but then again, I don't
actually need a hamburger, so I can live with that. And the taxpayers
will be getting a break in the form of less people on welfare. That
benefits me and you, right. Stick with me here SC, I know this thinking
for yourself stuff is hard for you, but I'll try to take it SLOW. These
same people will have more cash to spend, so that helps the economy,
right? So, if you and I benefit from an increase in minimum wage, who
loses? Well, it appears big business does, doesn't it? They are the ones
reaping the benefits of low labor costs, while at the same time raping
you and I because their employees cannot sustain themselves because of
an artificially low labor cost.

This is just one point, SC. I know you're out of your league debating,
but do you care to try to dispel this fact?


And to think I just thought you were a tiny little ****-ant, I see you're
a whiney ass liberal now too.

Get the government out of the way. Let the market place decide what the
wage will be for any job. If someone wants a job with better pay they
need to compete for it. That would also imply making an effort to better
yourself, so you're better than the person that is also competing for the
job.

And if anyone don't work, they don't eat. It's called taking
responsibility for yourself.

Wow! We actually agree on one thing. Unless of course, you cannot for some
true physical reason.


Democrats create victims and nurture the
notion that government is the only thing that can take care of you.

SC

"U-Know-Who" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"U-Know-Who" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message news:cEu5h.5298


It's not unwritten policy, it's life. Those that work hardest get
most. Unfortunately, a lot of people want only one class. A CB'er
like class.

You shouldn't have to work for anything, Just like liberalism and the
democrats. Those that work hardest get the fruits of their labor
punished, those that don't get welfare and handouts.

SC

Are you that ****ing stupid and simplistic?

Here's just one point, and of course, as usual, you'll have no
legitimate reply:

Minimum wage. The GOP states that if the minimum wage is increased,
the cost of everything will rise. Probably so. Of course keeping it
low means that things will cost less, right? Let me see, if we give
people a wage that they can live on, we'll have less people getting
welfare, right? Sure, the cost of a hamburger may go up, but then
again, I don't actually need a hamburger, so I can live with that. And
the taxpayers will be getting a break in the form of less people on
welfare. That benefits me and you, right. Stick with me here SC, I
know this thinking for yourself stuff is hard for you, but I'll try to
take it SLOW. These same people will have more cash to spend, so that
helps the economy, right? So, if you and I benefit from an increase in
minimum wage, who loses? Well, it appears big business does, doesn't
it? They are the ones reaping the benefits of low labor costs, while
at the same time raping you and I because their employees cannot
sustain themselves because of an artificially low labor cost.

This is just one point, SC. I know you're out of your league debating,
but do you care to try to dispel this fact?


And to think I just thought you were a tiny little ****-ant, I see
you're a whiney ass liberal now too.

Get the government out of the way. Let the market place decide what
the wage will be for any job. If someone wants a job with better pay
they need to compete for it. That would also imply making an effort to
better yourself, so you're better than the person that is also
competing for the job.

And if anyone don't work, they don't eat. It's called taking
responsibility for yourself.

Wow! We actually agree on one thing. Unless of course, you cannot for
some true physical reason.



ROFL. See, I'm not bad after all.

Now go learn your CW so you can have a chair at the club meeting.

SC