Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Not at all, Mr. Bluster. I wrote nothing about MY being relevant.

That's true. You are NOT relevant to any subject in here except
your over-prideful nonsense and trying to put down others who
won't worship you. Pfaughhh.

I can claim interest in any of the topics dealing with amateur radio and
to some of those which take slide off into the field of professional
radio. The fact is, I am actively involved in amateur radio and you are
not. That aside, I wrote nothing about MY relevance to the material you
conveniently snipped. You got it wrong.

I have no need for others to worship me, Len. I haven't even asked for
your quiet veneration after correcting your erroneous comment about the
Japanese equipment boom of the 1960's.

You have yet to provide a definition of "over-prideful".

Dave K8MN

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...

I am not "Lennie". Nor am I Len Anderson. I am just someone
who writes here when the mood strikes me.

Is that wrong?

Nope. Did I say it was...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, meet Dave. Dave, meet Steve.

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars.

You don't tolerate anonymous posters, either.

Or do you?

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars.

You don't tolerate anonymous posters, either.

Or do you?

Since I know who it is, he is not anonymous.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots
more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert

Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

About what?

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

Nope. Not mine.

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.

My main interest in amateur radio is HF Morse/CW operation, and designing,
building, aligning, maintaining and restoring equipment to do so. I have other
interests in amateur radio, too.

Others have different interests in amateur radio than I. They do their thing, I
do mine.

But we are all radio amateurs.

You, Len, are not a radio amateur. Nor have you ever been one. Your sole
interests seem to be in a few newsgroups.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

The VEC Question Pool Committee is open to input. They are the ones
who ORIGINATE questions and answers.

Anyone can originate questions and answers for the pools, and submit them to
the QPC.

However, changes the syllabus, testing methods, or other requirements require
FCC rules changes that are beyond QPC authority.

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Interest and drive." :-)

Yes, interest and drive. Those are good things, Len.

That equates to "laziness" and other negative moral/ethical things?

Nope. Laziness is the opposite. Laziness is not a good thing.

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

Nope. I don't claim to be an expert at anything. I challenge you to find a post
where I have called myself an expert.

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering."

Yep. For a living. Since at least 1976.

With a Masters degree, too!

That's right. BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania, MaSEE from Drexel
University.

Where is our degree from, Len?

... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)

Do try to control yourself.

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

Your behavior here is often less mature than that of a typical six-year-old,
Len ;-)

Can you name any problems caused by the licensing of young children in the ARS?
Violations by them?

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

Not me. I'm 49.

Did you know that the 1996 READEX survey commissioned by the ARRL showed that
the age group that was most procodetest was the 24-and-younger group? 85%
procodetest, 15% nocodetest. The hams of the future...

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

Sounds good to me. I say the FCC should make at least the lower 15% of each HF
amateur band CW-only.

Right now, the only amateur CW-only subbands are on VHF.

Would you rather eliminate the CW/data subbands, Len?

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

Where do you get that idea?

You get the idea.

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

No, I'm in the Amateur Radio Service. Since 1967.

You are not. You never have been.

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you
don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas,
that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

I don't give in to bad ideas. And my standards and practices are those of
today.

You live too much in the past, Len.

N2EY

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars.

You don't tolerate anonymous posters, either.

Or do you?

Since I know who it is, he is not anonymous.

Steve, K4YZ

You can thank me for the introduction anytime.

73, Brian

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
some snippage


My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.


Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

Back to now...

After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.


Such as?

Okay. Carl's (NCI's?) approach sounds reasonable and should work okay -
even though I disagree with it.

On the other end of the spectrum, the proposal to turn everyone into HF
weenies is just plain stupid in my book.


But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.


Sure. But that's been going on for decades now. Some folks would even
say it is justified because a ham doesn't have to know as much today
to get on the air and avoid breaking the rules.

The times do change, no doubt. It all comes back to my thinking we can
be as adroit as we want to be. On that spectrum, it varies from no test
whatsoever - proven by the many CB'ers who run power amps, to those who
think that a person needs to be an EE to get on the air.

What do WE want? I want the ham to have enough knowledge to get on the
air safely, to realize that he or she can do some nasty things to
themselves and others if they aren't careful. I want the ham to be able
to read instructions and comprehend them. I want them to know at at
least a superficial level just what their rigs are doing. I want the ham
to know where to look up things like band edges and allowable powers on
a band. I want the ham to know that they are expected to act like they
learned manners at some point. I want the ham to know basic theory such
as Ohms law, and very simple antenna design.

Oh, and BTW, I want the ham to know how to communicate at what I
consider the base mode - CW.


This is just my opinion.


For example: How many hams do you know who use barefoot rigs that
require tuneup in order to operate properly? (Not the ATU - the rig
itself). Besides me, that is.

How many do you know who regularly use 100% homebrew stations?

Personally, just you.


some snippage



Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

True. That is one of the reasons that I like the idea of having a bit
of challenge to the tests. I'd wager that those who are willing to put
forth extra effort are more likely to be an asset to the ARS than those
who aren't. All this is on average, and does not apply to the individual
ham.


"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it. Or even most of it. The repeater expert
may be in the dark about wire antennas. The digital folks may be
helpless with power supplies. And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

And how! The idea that we are going to get EE's in here is essentially
meaningless. It should be changed to RF engineers.... and of course the
ones who want to have their hobby also be their vocation. It takes a
special person indeed.



I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all.


Actually, some of them do. For instance, here are some gems from Fred
Maia, W5YI:

- Outlaw all forms of amateur bulletins and one way information
transmissions, INCLUDING CODE PRACTICE, below 30 MHz (1995 petition to
the FCC)

Booooring! And I know why too. Well, I oculd be wrong too. Was W1MAN
transmitting back then?

- Reduce the entry level license to a 20 question written and include
voice privileges on the bands above 20 meters

It's good to see he "retired" as a VEC. He really wanted that job to be
easy.


Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

You get the idea.


All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......


What you're seeing is what I call the "Zen method of design", where
they will never tell you what they want, only what they don't want.

And howaboddit! they don't like whatever I come up with.


Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.



Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.


BINGO!

Which means that the advance must be publicized, affordable, and offer
hams something they want.

Example: Cecil, W5DXP, used to rave about PACTOR-2. I started to look
into it, and discovered that (at the time) implementing it required
not just a shack computer but a $600 dedicated PACTOR 2 box. Which
explains why so few hams use the mode, compared to, say, PSK-31.

Haw! I wonder how many hams use that mode, any stats? It sounds like
some of the EME frequencies noted in QST where they name off all six of
the people who use it!


If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??



The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?


"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

I'd sure think so.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.

The Mantra has always been that:

1. The Code always gets thru
2. The Code will keep out the riff-raff
3. The Code requires just the right amount of suffering to prove ones devotions

Aaron Jones keeps the other 47 Mantras.

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.




What??? No "Hoops"??? No "unnecessary requirements"?? No
"Unjustified bogus BOHICA thingies"?? No "Morsedits" holding
back the intelligentsia?? No "If it wasn't for that dastardly
Morris code test I'd take my rightful place on HF??

No Mantra???? Get back to your village!

(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.

What??? No "Hoops"??? No "unnecessary requirements"?? No
"Unjustified bogus BOHICA thingies"?? No "Morsedits" holding
back the intelligentsia?? No "If it wasn't for that dastardly
Morris code test I'd take my rightful place on HF??

No mantra.

No Mantra???? Get back to your village!

You miss me?