A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is not a professional, a professional is
someone who is paid for their skill(s). Nowhere does it say that
either is competent or incompetent. Many amateurs are vastly more
skilled than professionals operating in the same area.

2) I am an amateur radio operator in the classic definition, that of one
who loves the activity, not in the much more recent corruption of the
word - that of non-professional or shoddy.

Most very strange in a world where I can perform most activities
much better than th eso called professionals.
--------

pro - does it for money. Implies that there is some
(financial,reputation) responsibility for results

amateur - does it for no money (e.g. for the love of the activity, see
the Latin root of the word).

Proficiency, competency, or skill doesn't really enter into it.
Although, an unskilled professional had better be a good salesperson,
because otherwise, nobody is going to be willing to compensate them.

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

It's also true that a pro that has been in business (successfully) for a
number of years is likely to be competent. (or they'd starve).

An amateur can get away with being incompetent for years without ill effect.

In some fields (Engineering, in the United States), there are some legal
aspects to being "pro" aside from being compensated. To call oneself a
Professional Engineer, one must have a certain amount of experience (6
years, typically) at engineering, have passed a couple of fairly
rigorous tests, etc. so that you have a license. One could acquire the
experience while unpaid, and certainly one doesn't get paid for the
test, so one could be an amateur Professional Engineer.

On Mar 29, 10:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!
John Ferrell W8CCW

Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?
3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.

On 3/30/2010 3:03 PM, Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
John writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun. Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

73, Eddi ._._.

Hello, all, and I think a wee bit of clarification is needed he

Profession (n): One who engages in a pursuit or activity professionally.

Profession (adj, sense 1c): Characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession.

(Both definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Now, in light of the above couldn't an amateur (not a dilettante, mind
you) radio person practice his/her craft "professionally?" Sincerely,
and 73s from N4GGO,

On 3/31/2010 7:09 AM, J.B. Wood wrote:
On 3/30/2010 3:03 PM, Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
John
writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun. Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

73, Eddi ._._.

Hello, all, and I think a wee bit of clarification is needed he

Profession (n): One who engages in a pursuit or activity professionally.

Profession (adj, sense 1c): Characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession.

(Both definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Now, in light of the above couldn't an amateur (not a dilettante, mind
you) radio person practice his/her craft "professionally?" Sincerely,
and 73s from N4GGO,

Hello, all, and back to the rear of the class for grammar/spelling. The
two above terms should have read "professional" vice "profession".
Sincerely,

Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
In John Ferrell writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun.

Isn't deriving satisfaction and sense of accomplishment part of fun? It
is for me, anyway. I suppose one can do it and get paid, being
professional, and still have fun. So maybe I should clarify and say
"who does it for *only* fun".




Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

I don't know about that. Aside from regulatory requirements, as an
amateur one can do it however well or poorly one wishes, according to
one's own standards.

As a professional, the implication is that if you don't do a good job,
you won't get paid. Mind you, more than one person has paid another to
do a job and had a poor result. So, in the individual instances,
professional is no guarantee of quality. However, in the long run, an
incompetent professional will starve. And, if it's an activity for
which professional licensing is required (Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer,
Accountant, etc.), there's more requirements.



73, Eddi ._._.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is not a professional, a professional is
someone who is paid for their skill(s). Nowhere does it say that
either is competent or incompetent. Many amateurs are vastly more
skilled than professionals operating in the same area.

2) I am an amateur radio operator in the classic definition, that of one
who loves the activity, not in the much more recent corruption of the
word - that of non-professional or shoddy.

Most very strange in a world where I can perform most activities
much better than th eso called professionals.
--------

pro - does it for money. Implies that there is some
(financial,reputation) responsibility for results

amateur - does it for no money (e.g. for the love of the activity, see
the Latin root of the word).

Proficiency, competency, or skill doesn't really enter into it.
Although, an unskilled professional had better be a good salesperson,
because otherwise, nobody is going to be willing to compensate them.

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

It's also true that a pro that has been in business (successfully) for a
number of years is likely to be competent. (or they'd starve).

An amateur can get away with being incompetent for years without ill effect.

In some fields (Engineering, in the United States), there are some legal
aspects to being "pro" aside from being compensated. To call oneself a
Professional Engineer, one must have a certain amount of experience (6
years, typically) at engineering, have passed a couple of fairly
rigorous tests, etc. so that you have a license. One could acquire the
experience while unpaid, and certainly one doesn't get paid for the
test, so one could be an amateur Professional Engineer.



I've always thought that folks who needed to argue the differences
between "amateur" and "professional" need to get themselves a life.

But, I'm an old redneck and what do I know about anything.

On Mar 30, 2:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.

when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

Can there even be such a thing as an amateur soldier?

Jim Lux wrote:

I don't know about that. Aside from regulatory requirements, as an
amateur one can do it however well or poorly one wishes, according to
one's own standards.

As a professional, the implication is that if you don't do a good job,
you won't get paid. Mind you, more than one person has paid another to
do a job and had a poor result. So, in the individual instances,
professional is no guarantee of quality. However, in the long run, an
incompetent professional will starve. And, if it's an activity for
which professional licensing is required (Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer,
Accountant, etc.), there's more requirements.

I pulled off my power panel in preparation to installing wiring to a new
spa. It was a rats nest of professional, inspected wiring. I rewired
the entire thing. And you can find a lot more "quality work" like this
in a lot of houses.

The sub-par professionals who do this work are more likely to lose their
jobs when the market goes south, and there just isn't any work for them
at all.

But during his employment, I have no doubt that the guy who wired my
house did it quickly and cheaply, and the quicker and cheaper made his
boss all the happier.I also have no doubt that there are hundred of
other houses he did exactly the same way. As for the person who did the
electrical inspection, I'll not speculate.

But the idea that the free market will weed out the poor actors is a
noble one but not true. The free market is looking for the cheapest, not
the best.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -