D. Stussy wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
D. Stussy wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a
retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).

I are a Ham!


Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal.

Allow a similar case.

Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people
think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy
Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal,
I'd be proud to be called one

That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing.

I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham.

It isn't a bad actor
It isn't a Piece of pork.

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

Lots of people are overweight. something like 60 percent of Americans
are. Interesting logic BTW. We're called Hams, not Pigs. And I'd rather
have an overweight Ham sitting beside me than a condescending one.


It is a licensed radio amateur.


While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur"
demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that
what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely
different things, although apparently not to some.

Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does.


Respectfully disagree. I've seen postings and have had many hams tell me
they consider the term amateur condescending. Even seen at least one QST
mail that said that.


How about a new reference name for the service


So what do *you* want to be called?

As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings....

Yup.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Bert Hyman wrote:
In "D. Stussy" wrote:

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby.


Maybe not. Could be similar to the Hamsexy stuff. Some folks just have
insecurities that they have to feed, so they spend their time trying to
make their brethern look bad.

Didn't see the Hamsexy folk at Dayton this year. Ya know, they looked
just like any other Hams there, I was expecting kewl folk, but no, they
were just like the rest of us....

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On May 29, 6:01 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).

--
You asked.

Where DO you get your information from?

Try this on for size before you make a rant like this again.

http://www.arrl.org/whyham.html

Jeff

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, wrote:

On May 29, 6:01 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).

--
You asked.

Where DO you get your information from?

Try this on for size before you make a rant like this again.

http://www.arrl.org/whyham.html

I wouldn't take that as definitive.

All the times I've seen people try to define where the term came from
have never come up with anything absolute. It's too far back in time.
and nobody recorded the origins at the time.

The point is it doesn't matter, since it was so long ago that the name
ceases to have a connection to it. It's used because it has been used.

Michael VE2BVW

wrote in message
...
On May 29, 6:01 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a
retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).

Where DO you get your information from?

Jeff, my citation was included. Random House Dictionary; a 1960's version.
Since you know me personally, come over sometime and I'll show it to you.

Try this on for size before you make a rant like this again.

http://www.arrl.org/whyham.html

PS: Substitute "retard" for "ham" and the line "X is jamming you" still has
the same meaning. Not coincidence....

Jiggly wrote:
The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition)

Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of
nice people and good operators that way.

That reminds me.....


For years we've been force fed about how we have to eat right, not
smoke, etc. How the obese ans smokers and heavy drinkers were going to
be a healthcare disaster.

Apparently that stuff takes an average of 4 years off our life. People
who live the proper life will live around 4 years longer on average.

But the kicker is this:

When they got the stats on relative life expectancy, they found the
causes of death. Those obese and smoking and hard drinkin' jerks tended
to have a quick end, while the righteous proper folk tended to have long
debilitating ends.

My Mother-in-law didn't smoke, didn't drink, and spent the lat 8 years
of her life as an dementia patient in a nursing home. I cringe every
time I think of that happening to me.

The problem with lengthening our lives is that any gains we make are at
the wrong end.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Michael Coslo wrote:

Jiggly wrote:
The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition)

Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of
nice people and good operators that way.

That reminds me.....


For years we've been force fed about how we have to eat right, not smoke,
etc. How the obese ans smokers and heavy drinkers were going to be a
healthcare disaster.

Apparently that stuff takes an average of 4 years off our life. People who
live the proper life will live around 4 years longer on average.

But the kicker is this:

When they got the stats on relative life expectancy, they found the causes of
death. Those obese and smoking and hard drinkin' jerks tended to have a quick
end, while the righteous proper folk tended to have long debilitating ends.

My Mother-in-law didn't smoke, didn't drink, and spent the lat 8 years of her
life as an dementia patient in a nursing home. I cringe every time I think of
that happening to me.

The problem with lengthening our lives is that any gains we make are at the
wrong end.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


Some thoughts on the wisdom above: all those articles citing studies
involving statistics benefit not you, but i) the newspaper reporter making
his wages for doing this, ii) the medical school professor getting the
grants to do the work (including pay his/her salary [i.e. the school gets
its staff for free]), and iii) the bean-counter actuaries who work with
the insurance companies figuring out what premiums to charge you based on
any factors that significantly affect the mortality curves.

No doctor can plug into you any "voltmeter" (or cholesterol meter, or
weight meter, etc), and tell you because of X, YOU're going to live N more
days. You can calculate satellite orbits, miles of gas left in your car's
gas tank, and minutes of light left in a flashlight with considerable
accuracy, but in a biological animal, you can't make those kinds of
predictions unless you're talking about death being caused by bleeding at
high rates or you're in the middle of suffering a hearth attack or the
likes of that.

Now, enjoy the rest of your life as best you can (ice cream, booze, don't
smoke tobacco around me, etc) and consider that if you agonize too much
over things, then those visits to the psychiatrists will cut into your
entertainment budget AND you will be more unhappy.

73

Look around you and you will find that it's pretty much true of the entire
population not just hams.

Dee


"Jiggly" wrote in message
...
The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition)

Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of
nice people and good operators that way.


On 02 Jun 2008 13:44:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In "D. Stussy"
wrote:

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby.

Good luck.

"Jiggly" wrote in message
...
The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition)

Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of
nice people and good operators that way.


On 02 Jun 2008 13:44:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In "D. Stussy"
wrote:

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby.

Good luck.

Doing some further web surfing:

Depending on what site you visit (here's the one I used:
http://www.nclnet.org/news/2007/obes...y_06192007.htm)

Approximately 66% of Americans are overweight to obese
Approximately half of that group (or 33%) of Americans are obese to
morbidly obese.

So it is not unique to hams. I think we see it more in hams simply because
the average age is higher and the bad habits that lead to overweight and
obesity have had more time to do their work.

Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all
those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate
the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the
mirror nude, you are overweight.

Dee