|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
A. G. Bell wrote: Sorry, Billy, but I prefer to think of that as maliciousness. Agreed. Especially when he expresses a desire to get to someone's wife or children. Bell, what are you using to post with? It's not attributing correctly. bb |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message So who do you think "Slow Code" is? Coslo? Miccolis? Roll? Deignan? Dan, Dan the CB Radio Man? Haven't a clue on Slow Code. The style doesn't sound like Coslo or Miccolis. Obviously it's someone who's been here awhile. Don't really know the style of the other fellows writing. Troll was the racist poster ("My favorite black on the bus...," and "Welfare mothers of Color with their hands out..."). I delete such without reading them and generally delete all the resulting posts. Yep. That's a helluva thing for a 20 year veteran to be saying. I'm sure he had to spend a fair amount of time in the "Social Actions" office with them trying to reeducate him. And the totally laughable part of all that was that he said he had a degree in human resources and was trying to land a position in that field. Deignan was the vanity callsign collector and the original "RF Commando." He called me a liar when I said he had collected 12 callsigns, but I was wrong - one of the callsigns actually belonged to his wife at the same address. So I guess I was a liar after all. I should have known that he had a Ham Wife that collected vanity callsigns, too. There are way too many people that confuse honest mistakes with lying. Don't be one of them. I'm not, though I do throw it in Robesin's face when he call an opinion that differes from his "A LIE!" The FCC has been getting on people for doing that and making them justify the calls or give them up. They got on Deignan, too. Deignan's buddy in Hawaii loaned him his PO Box number so he could scam some Hawaiin calls, meanwhile, the Hawaiin PO Box owner was scamming a Guam callsign. Never been to Guam and could have operated /KH2 like I did for two years. I guess a Hawaiin Call Stroke Guam Call is a pretty cool thing... Don't see why. But again the FCC is getting wise to such antics. With some of these guys they think it adds to their credential. It's like the JA's using a JA owned hotel address on Guam to get the Guam 1x2 calls. But collecting 11 different call and then turning some of them into Hawaiin calls is just another form of megalomania that we see on RRAP. In QRZ.com, in the name search, type in "RF Commando" or something like that. Nevermind, I'll do it... There are 1 records matching +rf* +commando* KB1CCE RF COMMANDOS RHODE ISLAND CHAPTER There are 3 records matching +Deignan* KH6HZ DEIGNAN MICHAEL P (This one is a Hawaiin call with a MA addy) WE1RD MICHAEL P DEIGNAN REPEATER ASSOCIATION (This one in Rhode Island, weird) The 3rd is a yl in Canada, so I'm not posting that. Anyway, all three of the above calls are at different addresses. Anyway, these are the guys who pass judgement on me because I am too fat, lazy, and stupid to buy into the whole Morse Exam stuff at 5, and then 13, and then 20 WPM. Depends on how bad you want the privileges. Just don't ask for something for nothing. Originally I had no interest in ham radio but my husband at the time dragged me to a class as something we could do together. As I got involved, I found it interesting. I deduced very early on that what I wanted to get out of ham radio would best be served by going all the way to Extra. Since I wanted the privileges, I met the requirements including the 20 wpm. So if he dragged you to a class, how did you end up presiding over the class that took him to Extra? Not everyone wants those privileges. Kim is a case in point. She is a Tech Plus and could have gotten her General with just a written test and no further code testing as of April 2000. She chose not to because she did not really like HF operations. The typical background static of HF bothers her. Her interests lie in VHF and up. Since she has full privileges there, the General does not serve her goals. Yep. Technician is a whole lot of priveleges. That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own "style." Very true. But it takes a lot of discipline to consistently write in a different style and not make tell tale slips. When Len Anderson was posting as Avery Fineman, it was quite obvious they were the same person. When I post as Hot-Ham, there's no intent to deceive. There is an intent to have a throw-away email address that I've checked the mailbox content about twice. It can fill up with all that spam that the spammers desire. I Am What I Am. That a famous quote of Popeye. I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request. I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do. Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than I have. That's so swell of him. I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just tit for tat. No? Doesn't really matter as with the internet this information is findable one way or another if one cares to go after it. Posting it here only shows that you have the internet search skills of any average user and get some kind of juvenile thrill out of posting it. Dee, N8UZE The intent is to intimidate. |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Slow Code wrote: Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the group anymore. SC Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful. No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, I see Mark Morgan as the necessary balance in the vicious postings by Robesin. He doesn't need to create dozens of posts to refute each one. You don't get to decide that. Has Robesin accused you of lesbian encounters or pedophilia? When he does, I'll be sure to keep track of the ratio of Robesin postings to Dee postings. Well if such an odd thing should ever happen, I'll killfile him. I refuse to get sucked into such stupidity. And one day when your job depends on a security background investigation and accusations of homosexuality, pedophilia, and rape... Many of Mark's posts are and were quite vicious. Um, yeh. It's really awful, isn't it? Almost as bad as accusing people of rape. I killfiled Morgan the day he made unacceptable comments about Steve's deceased daughter. Did you know that his daughter was severly retarded, and he makes jokes about "the short bus" on RRAP? I doubt that his daughter was well off enough to ride the short bus that Robesin pokes fun at.. I don't particularly care for either one's tactics and stay out of that mess. Fair enough. We actually have very little in common. We both claim to be amateur radio operator and military veterans. I got chopped to the US Army twice, so I know a little bit about the Army. I also got chopped to the US Navy once, and there and at service schools, and in Somalia, was fairly close to the USMC. As far as amateur radio goes, the only one of these bozos I've ever QSO'd was Heil when I was DX on Guam. the interminable pontification of Len Anderson, Yeh, well, we have Jim who served in other ways. I'm sure he has something to be proud of, too, but so far he hasn't mentioned it in other ways. I happen to remember the post. He said that one can serve in other ways. He did not say whether he himself served in the military or in other ways. Even worse. Yet based on that comment, Len Anderson and others have made ASSumptions. Jim's had YEARS to clarify, and he's been questioned SPECIFICALLY about that comment. the compulsive responses that some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of people like Opus, I guess you conveniently forgot Dan and Bruce's postings to Kim.... Long time ago, but I think I mentioned it was stupid of them. Stupid? It was sexual harassment. That's illegal isn't it? Hard to say. One would have to weigh it against the specific wording of the law and adjudicated cases to determine if it was or was not illegal. Good side-step. Are Bruce and Dan in your killfile? Are "thier" anonymous characters in your killfile? However, she's an adult and is capable of dealing with these people on her own. Yeh, right. You didn't like her politics, so she's on her own. How do you come to that conclusion? I know very little about her politics and it wouldn't matter if I did. As I recall, she defended her choice far better than I or anyone else could have done it for her. I supported her right to choose a legally available call sign even though I thought her choice a little strange. It's not within my power to make others accept it. Talk about not just sexist, but bonifide sexual harassment (and Jim never once chimed in to say boo).... As tasteless and tacky as it was, it may not have actually meet the legal definition of sexual harassment. She was not threatened with a job loss or with an overall loss in her quality of life. Discussion groups are not for the faint of heart, especially ones like these newsgroups. Participation in these news groups does not contribute to quality of life in any significant way. It is an idle and insignificant form of recreation. She chose the call sign. I believe she did. Yup. A simple check of the call sign database shows that it is a vanity call. So it was hers by choice. I don't recall for sure but didn't she say she did it on a dare? Never filled out a Form 610 while drunk? Me either. It's not up to him or me or any one else to defend her other than to say it was her right. I believe that I commented that I thought it was a poor choice but it was up to her. I believe you did just that. So when a YL wearing a slit skirt and a push-up bra gets raped...? Not the same thing at all and you very well know it. True, by magnitudes. But it's still abuse. Her overall quality of life is seriously affected and her life could even be in danger. Besides rapists don't care what the victim is wearing. They are looking for some one they can successfully dominate and terrorize. The shy school girl in the dowdy clothes hurrying home with her books clutched to her chest is just as likely or even more likely to be raped than the brazen hookers down on Eight Mile (that's a Detroit reference). Dee from Deetroit? I like Michigan but Detroit isn't my favorite place. Was she asking for it and is she on her own? See my comment above. If I saw some one being threatened with violence and it were within my power to do something about it, I would. It wouldn't matter if it were that shy school girl or that brazen hooker. Today, I'd have to limit myself to calling for help but in my younger, more fit days, I'd also have taken an active (i.e. physical) part in her defense. Fair enough. the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those who licensed or will license under the current system and so on. He's only saying what the PCTA Extras would like to say without their callsigns attached to it. I'm a pro code test advocate and an Extra. I would never have guessed. I would never hide behind anonymity. Jim does. And I do not hold the candidates responsible for the quality or extent of the tests. They have no choice in the matter. What the new ham does have a choice in is to either stagnate or progress. He can gain the experience to then join in discussions and contribute or he can put his foot in his mouth with such inexperienced statements as "you need an amplifier to work DX" or "you can't work Texas from Michigan on VHF". However even then, I try to avoid anything that could be taken as a put down because I want them to stay in ham radio and grow and develop. I'll invite them over to work a contest with my measly 100 watts or I'll introduce them to one of the QRP enthusiasts. I'll invite them to work the VHF station at Field Day and pair them up with one of our VHF experts. It's called being a good ham and an Elmer. No "shack on a belt" quips? Nope. Why should I? It accomplishes nothing. I want people to enjoy ham radio. I want their motivation to develop to be based on the joy they get out of it and the joy they see others get out of it. Sarcasm does not serve that objective. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I think amateur radio is one of the best hobbies ever, and it can also serve in an emergency communications roll. |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Chris" wrote in message Already tried it. And dismissed it. esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill in the problems and correct the process As I said while it is the best that is available, it is still far below the capabilities of a human operator. Correction. ...a few human operators. indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham operators but hat doesn't count I've tried it under a wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to function. Dee, N8UZE Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through). Unrelated to my comments. You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl, Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are good." You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely. No one has said all CW signals are good. And they aren't. If they were always good, CWGet would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software solution are those who wish that it would always work. And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators are superb morsemen. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode. The extremists on each side don't want to hear that. Dee, N8UZE Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk. well it is a thankless job Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received. You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community. Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. What point? Try thinking about it just a wee little bit. I did. It's not clear. Spell it out for us, please. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Nope. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Just 25 years? I wrote "more than 25 years". I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license where hams get an upgrade from their buddy. What does that mean? Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put offices so far away from ham's residences. ?? The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money. They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to cause you to win the debate? No false sexist claim. It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of her station W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. Where do you get that idea? Fair is fair, yes? You're not fair at all. |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA amateur radio operators... Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job (contesting) for which it is ill-suited. And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge. That's because CWGet fails in almost all contest situations. It cannot handle the QRM caused by all the stations calling at once. Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back. No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient. I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the exchange. But it worked. If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's sad but that's their problem. Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses... While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low activity levels. When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that? They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on. It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet. So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed (the human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually keyed code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or just call it a night and go to bed. OK. [snip] You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis something magical. Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there is NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have operating experience. They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think that tells the story. The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse Code that is sufficient for the purpose. The FCC doesn't need to define it. They say we must pass the International Morse Code. It is sufficient that the dot/dash sequence is defined for the characters. The weighting, spacing, and speed can be varied to suit the conditions. For test purposes, the Council of VECs establishes the test standard and that is sufficient since all who go test have the opportunity to train using the exact parameters (tone, weighting, spacing, speed, etc) that will be used on the test. The variations that occur in the real world can be learned on the air. [snip] I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that. You're talking about the working world. Were you able to hire out your studies in college? Since we weren't required to take electrical engineering courses, it is not relevant. Would you require EEs to take basic mechanical engineering courses? That would chew up a couple of years. Were you able to hire out your PE exams? Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or registration or whatever they call it these days. Plus there are study guides specifically aimed at the content of the PE exam. Plus the exam for a structural engineer is different from the one for a mechanical engineer is different from the one for an electrical engineer, etc. Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional engineer........ Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory. OK. Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough. You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the area to which I referred. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in amateur licensing? No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. One needs to learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want to further explore various branches of amateur radio. Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33 years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic. The ironic part is that Fortran was a class I hated in college and struggled to get through (Basic was not in use at the time). Once I was out in the real world working on software to use in real situations, I found it to be quite easy and fun. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Chris" wrote in message Already tried it. And dismissed it. esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill in the problems and correct the process As I said while it is the best that is available, it is still far below the capabilities of a human operator. Correction. ...a few human operators. indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham operators but hat doesn't count I've tried it under a wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to function. Dee, N8UZE Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through). Unrelated to my comments. You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl, Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are good." You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely. No one has said all CW signals are good. And they aren't. If they were always good, CWGet would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software solution are those who wish that it would always work. And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators are superb morsemen. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode. The extremists on each side don't want to hear that. Dee, N8UZE Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk. well it is a thankless job Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received. You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community. Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. What point? Try thinking about it just a wee little bit. I did. It's not clear. Spell it out for us, please. I'll spell it out for you, Jim. Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free license. Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code, and couldn't if their lives depended on it. So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Nope. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Just 25 years? I wrote "more than 25 years". I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license where hams get an upgrade from their buddy. What does that mean? Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago. Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down. The USA amateur service has a proud history of it. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put offices so far away from ham's residences. ?? The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money. It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing, unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for their travel. They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. Good thing there wasn't a union. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to cause you to win the debate? No false sexist claim. It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of her station Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be doing it? W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. Where do you get that idea? Fair is fair, yes? You're not fair at all. Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the RRAP Moderator? |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy. Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED! Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software. Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting so very simple? Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment after basic training? Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training. However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is not part of basic training. Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring. Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring? So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area. On the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there is not a test for it. Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave up on code. They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio. Government agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates. They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: [snip] Depends on how bad you want the privileges. Just don't ask for something for nothing. Originally I had no interest in ham radio but my husband at the time dragged me to a class as something we could do together. As I got involved, I found it interesting. I deduced very early on that what I wanted to get out of ham radio would best be served by going all the way to Extra. Since I wanted the privileges, I met the requirements including the 20 wpm. So if he dragged you to a class, how did you end up presiding over the class that took him to Extra? Different husband. My previous husband dragged me to the Tech class. We split up a few years later. Then after that I met the man who was to become my current husband. It is my current husband who took the Extra class that I was teaching. Sorry for the confusion there. Although it would have been possible for me to have taught my previous husband since I reached Extra a couple of months before he did. Not everyone wants those privileges. Kim is a case in point. She is a Tech Plus and could have gotten her General with just a written test and no further code testing as of April 2000. She chose not to because she did not really like HF operations. The typical background static of HF bothers her. Her interests lie in VHF and up. Since she has full privileges there, the General does not serve her goals. Yep. Technician is a whole lot of priveleges. That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own "style." Very true. But it takes a lot of discipline to consistently write in a different style and not make tell tale slips. When Len Anderson was posting as Avery Fineman, it was quite obvious they were the same person. When I post as Hot-Ham, there's no intent to deceive. There is an intent to have a throw-away email address that I've checked the mailbox content about twice. It can fill up with all that spam that the spammers desire. I Am What I Am. That a famous quote of Popeye. And I don't criticize some one who does that. It is only when there is the apparent intent to deceive (Len Anderson) or the appaerent intent to violate their ISPs TOS (Mark Morgan), that it is unreasonable. I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request. I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do. Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than I have. That's so swell of him. I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just tit for tat. No? Doesn't really matter as with the internet this information is findable one way or another if one cares to go after it. Posting it here only shows that you have the internet search skills of any average user and get some kind of juvenile thrill out of posting it. Dee, N8UZE The intent is to intimidate. Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not be aware how easy that information is to find these days. Dee, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com