On Mar 3, 10:30�pm, "
wrote:
* *SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CODELESS "REVOLUTION"

* *Based solely onwww.hamdata.compublished statistics from
* *22 February to 3 March 2007, there doesn't seem to be the
* *kind of "revolution" nor the influx of CB hordes expected
* *by the long-timers....(HUGE SNIP OF WINDY VERBAGE)

Most notable in it's absence from the rolls of newly licensed
persons is the name"Leonard H Anderson" of California.

Despite both outright insistence of impending licensure to not-so-
subtle hints of "well maybe I'll do it this time", it's apparent that
Lennie has no intention of doing what he says he'll do.

No doubt this is the reason that Lennie "retired from regular
hours" as an alledged "electrical engineer" without having been
professionally published or hallmarked in his career...Not even a
single one of his "articles" in a long since defunct Amateur Radio
periodical have even made it as a footnote in any other publication or
paper.

But here he is again...Trying to impress the general public with
more of his windy blatherings that really amounts to nothing.

Lame. Really lame.

Steve, K4YZ

On Mar 4, 7:43�am, wrote:

Eventually, they'll all be Extras and my wish for a one class amateur
radio service will be fulfilled. *We should change the name of that
license to: *Amateur.

We already ranked you as an amateur a long time ago, Brain. On
soooooooooooo many levels.

Steve, K4YZ

On Mar 4, 9:53�am, . wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:09:26 -0500, "Dee Flint"

wrote:

Dee, as a Technician (from Novice), I enjoyed DXing and Contesting on
10M SSB. *Lots of fun.

Yup, 10 meters is a fun band. *However as a Tech, you only get part of it.
While there can certainly be a lot of DX in the Tech portion, I've seen it
full from top to bottom with DX during a contest if the band is open. *You
could have even more fun if you upgrade.

would you mind checking your facts before making an ### of yourself BB
is a cureently a general I believe he made that leap shortly after the
last restructuring

Hey slimeball...Why don't you read what Dee wrote BASED ON WHAT
BRAIN SAID...?!?!?

WHY should she "check (her) facts" when Brain had JUST made a post
that made it appear as though he were only a Tech...?!?!

If you want to admonish anyone, fatboy, admonish Brain for
misrepresenting himself (again).

YOU don't check YOUR "facts" before posts...So take your own
advice, Your Creepiness.

Steve, K4YZ

On Mar 4, 12:25�pm, "
wrote:

* *The military is IN the business of DESTRUCTION at the
* *very real fact of part of the military being destroyed in
* *the process of doing "defense." *

Wrong again.

The Armed Forces is in the business of defending the United States
and implementing of US foreign policy, by force of arms if necessary.

Even the most casual of reader of military teechnology knows that
the current state of the art of that "business" is LIMITING that
"destruction" (read that "collateral damage") at every possible level.

Today's military can do far more tactically and strategically
with far less damage than their forebearers did in World War 2.

If you'd like, I can suggest a couple of sources of research for
you to follow-up on so you can get future posts more accurate-
sounding...

Or....You can just go on pounding us with tons of windy arguments
about how since the correspondents weren't really "there" when "it"
happened, we can't possibly know what's going on....

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

On Mar 6, 1:39 am, "K4YZ" wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:53?am, . wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:09:26 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:
Dee, as a Technician (from Novice), I enjoyed DXing and Contesting on
10M SSB. ?Lots of fun.

Yup, 10 meters is a fun band. ?However as a Tech, you only get part of it.
While there can certainly be a lot of DX in the Tech portion, I've seen it
full from top to bottom with DX during a contest if the band is open. ?You
could have even more fun if you upgrade.

would you mind checking your facts before making an ### of yourself BB
is a cureently a general I believe he made that leap shortly after the
last restructuring

Hey slimeball...Why don't you read what Dee wrote BASED ON WHAT
BRAIN SAID...?!?!?

I did steve

WHY should she "check (her) facts" when Brain had JUST made a post
that made it appear as though he were only a Tech...?!?!

becuase sge should that is why and BB made no such post

If you want to admonish anyone, fatboy, admonish Brain for
misrepresenting himself (again).

again you **** with the facts stve

YOU don't check YOUR "facts" before posts...So take your own
advice, Your Creepiness.

yes I do you lie all the time stve like your lie I am under
investagtion

I was indeed investagted, but only because you complained... No let me
be fair someone claim to be an LPN from TN claimed to have knowledge
my father was being abused by me
I merely assume it was till proven otherwise

Steve, K4YZ

KH6HZ wrote:

CW's relevancy and viability, and its continued usage as a skills test in
the ARS, are two separate issues as I see it.

People who "see it differently" may see the tooth fairy or aliens, no
problems, they have medications for that nowadays.

I see CW, still, as a very viable and very relevant mode of operation in the
ARS. The last time I recall somewhere around 50% of hams polled indicate
they use CW. That makes it very relevant to the ARS today.

Well, keep watching ...

Now, whether or not it should remain a test element is a different argument
altogether. For a very long time, I have been a proponent of eliminating the
code test, and instead strengthening the written examinations.

The written exams need to be relevant and justifiable, that is all ...

Others have suggested retaining CW as a skills test, and while I understand
that line of thought, I disagree with it today. I'm not sure there is one
'skills' test for the ARS which is really suitable.

Some have claimed they have seen aliens, I remain skeptical ...


Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who
become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to
learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the
theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the
licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations
wrong -- that says something is seriously broken.

They need to know allowable power levels for band/freqs which are in
use. They need to know the freqs they are allowed to use. It would be
nice if they knew how to construct transistor gear (tubes are obsolete
and irrelevant.) However, the construction they can pick up later ...
if so interested ...

From my daily interaction with recent US high school graduates, I can
definitely see that the vast majority are lacking basic math and english
skills, compared to their foreign counterparts. Virtually all the US-based
students I work with need some form of remedial or "basic" english and math
classes, whereas their foreign counterparts are beyond the "entry level"
freshman math and science classes from the get-go.

Well, look at just the general population, only about 3 in 100 are
intelligent enough to be bothered with. Always has been so, and will be
so long into the future. This is nothing new ... you see a prime
example of it right here in this news group ...

Some just don't get it and never will ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

wrote:

...
A couple of points he Deignan has not toned down his
combination of Cynical Chic attitude and general "I am
superior to you" coloring of his comments. The "knowledge
of computers" (how to use them, really) is generally
overblown by those INTO computers as it applies to this
modern age. Yes, the Internet is OPEN to all and at least
one out of five households in the USA has some form of
Internet access. But, on the Internet is a collection of
dreck, of bigotry, terribly one-sided crap, emotionally-
loaded opinions, all mixed in with public relations,
personal "look at me" sort of things AND intellectual
knowledge. It is much more convenient to use the Internet
to hunt for any of those things than to leave the house
and go running around for input different ways.

The Internet made many many things possible but the
increase of an individual's knowledge bank is an
entirely different subject. The Internet is such a
HUGE pot-pourri of different "stuff," so MUCH stuff
that it can't be evaluated properly.

73,

The above is false, misleading, inaccurate and comes from a "footing"
which is flawed.

True, you MUST be intelligent and educated enough to access INTELLIGENT,
ACCURATE, KNOWLEDGEABLE are RELEVANT sources on the internet.

Frequently I limit searches by including:

site:.edu (NOTE: the a colon follows site and a period preceeds
edu--with NO spaces in the entire line)

This will limit your searches to ONLY educational institutions, in
google ... there is much more you need to know also--TAKE A COMPUTER
CLASS!!!

If you doubt the accuracy of what your search engine is giving you,
indeed, if you have found inaccurate data returned from your search
engine--EDUCATE YOURSELF AND COME UP TO SPEED IN THE PRESENT
MILLENNIUM--THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE INTERNET--IT IS YOU!!!

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

KH6HZ wrote:

...
Nope, I'm an ARRL Life Member, and I used to be a member of No-Code
International, until Carl Stevenson had me kicked out because he didn't like
me.

Well, to the avg joe, it is apparent why he didn't like you, most
probably don't like ya. I mean, I had that figured out right away!

However, if that is true, he kicked ya just because he didn't like
you--that IS UNFAIR.

However, if he kicked ya because you are an ignorant jerk, you really
can't blame him, can ya?

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

On Mar 6, 5:11�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

* ...

* *A couple of points he *Deignan has not toned down his
* *combination of Cynical Chic attitude and general "I am
* *superior to you" coloring of his comments. *The "knowledge
* *of computers" (how to use them, really) is generally
* *overblown by those INTO computers as it applies to this
* *modern age. *Yes, the Internet is OPEN to all and at least
* *one out of five households in the USA has some form of
* *Internet access. *But, on the Internet is a collection of
* *dreck, of bigotry, terribly one-sided crap, emotionally-
* *loaded opinions, all mixed in with public relations,
* *personal "look at me" sort of things AND intellectual
* *knowledge. *It is much more convenient to use the Internet
* *to hunt for any of those things than to leave the house
* *and go running around for input different ways.

* *The Internet made many many things possible but the
* *increase of an individual's knowledge bank is an
* *entirely different subject. *The Internet is such a
* *HUGE pot-pourri of different "stuff," so MUCH stuff
* *that it can't be evaluated properly.

* *73,

The above is false, misleading, inaccurate and comes from a "footing"
which is flawed.

True, you MUST be intelligent and educated enough to access INTELLIGENT,
ACCURATE, KNOWLEDGEABLE are RELEVANT sources on the internet.

Sorry, JS, there is NO, repeat *no* a priori knowledge of
whether "all" websites contain "intelligent, accurate,
knowledgeable, relevant" stuff for anyone. Now you know
as well as I that there are websites which have questionable
intelligence, unreferenced "accuracy," and things which are
not "relevant" to what is being searched for.

Frequently I limit searches by including:

site:.edu *(NOTE: *the a colon follows site and a period preceeds
edu--with NO spaces in the entire line)

That is very general advice. In electronics engineering
I can (and have, many a time) found ".edu" sites with
OLD and OUTDATED manufacturers datasheets and
similar "information." By trial and error, I know where
I CAN find the latest information on components that
are no longer in production but are still on sale somewhere.

This will limit your searches to ONLY educational institutions, in
google ... there is much more you need to know also--TAKE A COMPUTER
CLASS!!!

Now now, JS, try not to get excited less someone tells
you to shove that up your CLASS. :-)

If you doubt the accuracy of what your search engine is giving you,
indeed, if you have found inaccurate data returned from your search
engine--EDUCATE YOURSELF AND COME UP TO SPEED IN THE PRESENT
MILLENNIUM--THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE INTERNET--IT IS YOU!!!

Not quite. It is the CONTENT of many, many Internet sites.

Those of us who DO search (not just with Google) are able
to find what we want, to ignore many of the hits on search
listings out of experience.

For example, you can compare the content of one of the
Big3 amateur rig manufacturers, Icom. Icom America
has less content on small stuff, especially accessories.
Also on digitized copies of operating manuals. Icom
Japan was more on their English site, including old
manuals. I'm not sure where the LINKS of HRO take one
on getting manuals and brochures but those aren't the
same as either Icom site. Take another detailed look at
the ARRL as an example. If one searches Applications,
that button is really a Link to access the FCC website,
yet the organization implies it is "theirs."

Not ALL amateur equipment makers HAVE a recognizeable
Internet site yet (strange but true) or the common, familiar
brand name is NOT what their website has in their URL.
[try finding a URL for Maldol antennas...it's a Japanese
company, BTW, and I was able to get more direction by
going to a UK dealer's webiste to learn much more than
was "easily available" elsewhere]

You want Porn? LOTS of it! If that's your bag, that is,
not mine [been there, done that...:-) ] You want HATE
groups? Plenty around for spleen-venting. Want a
couple of Al-Quaida agit-prop sites? Watch ABC TV
news in HD for the Low Down on them. There be ALL
KINDS OF STUFF on the 'Net with some imaginative
folks behind them doing the URL disguise thing. You
can do you own via GoDaddy, get your own "stealth"
URL name, be an "edu" or a "sci" or an "org" and have
a blast putting stuff over on others. :-)

73, LA




JS
--http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Although it's only been a dozen days since the
rules changed, there doesn't seem to be a flood
of new growth yet.

On Feb 22, 2007, the last day of the old rules,
there were 654,680 current, unexpired FCC-issued
amateur radio licenses held by individuals. Of those,
324,326 were held by Techs and Tech Pluses.

On Mar 05, 2007, there were 654,265 current, unexpired FCC-issued
amateur radio licenses
held by individuals. That's a drop of 415. Of those,
322,461 were held by Techs and Tech Pluses.

Looks like, so far, the main result of the rules
changes has been upgrades rather than
new hams.

73 de Jim, N2EY