Appalling...
 

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Greg Courville wrote:

I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers, by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.

DICK would like to present himself as a "reasonable" ham. DICK is
primary in this newgroup for inciting namecalling, preferring to call
names rather than have a legitimate discussion. See -every- post he's
made in the last week.

Don't believe DICK.

It's just unbelievable to me that while all of the
books talk about how wonderful and helpful hams are, a significant
number of them spend their time cutting each other down over random
issues. I see "newbies" come to these boards for help, and get cut
down by inconsiderate jerks who just feel like making people feel
stupid.

You're making assumptions here that shouldn't, indeed can't, be made.

Assumptions can always be made. That's what makes them assumptions.

The jerks who show up her complaining about the code test requrement and
blaming all us who just did it, without complaining.

And? Finish the thought.

That in so doing
learned that Morse code does indeed add substantially to ham radio, to the
point that we believe code testing has a permanent place in ham radio, is
just so much nonsense to them. They already know all about it.

Yet there are those of us who don't believe as you do. We are
constantly attacked.

How many hams didn't start out with a lower-level license?
People need to stop beating up on us poor no-coders.

Come into ham radio with a proper attitude (note I didn't say THE proper
attitude) and you'll be received just as well as anyone ever was.

THE proper attitude is what he meant, though. Otherwise enter at your
own risk.

Don't they
realize that the new people look up to the old-timers?

You REALLY must have not been reading here very closely at all, Greg.
Were that the case *here* you wouldn't have a report to make.

His words are valid. Initially, newcomers do look up to the
old-timers. Till the moment the old-timers start pushing "No CW=No
Ham" ideology.

I must say that
after reading books about how hams help people all over the world and
are generally just a wonderful bunch, these groups have really changed
my view of the amateur radio community.

Don't feel lonesome.
It sure changed my view of ham radio, too. I showed up here several years
ago to engage in civil, sincere discourse on the merits of code testing,
and was immediately set upon by the code haters for my views. It's been
all downhill from there.

DICK was instrumental in the downhill part. And he's been here more
than just "several years." He's working on his 1st decade of bile.

I don't doubt that even this
thread will end in a violent exchange of profanities and become just
another flame war.


Once again, you will get the treatment you deserve here, at least from me.

So far you're doing OK, I don't blame you for your concern. But I suggest
you might benefit from a bit more knowledge of the background of what has
happened here.

Absolutely.

Brian

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in message
...

Greg Courville wrote:


I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in
Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers
belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers,
by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.


DICK would like to present himself as a "reasonable" ham. DICK is
primary in this newgroup for inciting namecalling, preferring to call
names rather than have a legitimate discussion. See -every- post he's
made in the last week.

Strange, Brian. I am a nickle extra, and am not very good at CW, and I
get along just fine with Dick.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Which just goes to show: it's not lack of license class, it's lack of class
in all.

Kim W5TIT

Which just goes to show: it's not lack of license class, it's lack of
class
in all.

Kim W5TIT



OOOUUUUCH!!!!!
that HAD to hurt!

Clint
KB5ZHT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Brian wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in message
...

Greg Courville wrote:


I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers, by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.


DICK would like to present himself as a "reasonable" ham. DICK is
primary in this newgroup for inciting namecalling, preferring to call
names rather than have a legitimate discussion. See -every- post he's
made in the last week.

Strange, Brian. I am a nickle extra, and am not very good at CW, and I
get along just fine with Dick.


You like Dick? !!?!!

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

He comes in calls us the most repulsive people on the face of the
earth, remember the N***S? and then says this?

I still want to ask if this is the brave new ham type that we have to
look forward to after Morse is gone.

Mike, I don't think you are the "most repulsive people on the face of the
earth." Ignorant of the wider world of radio communications, yes.
Unable to learn much of that wider radio world, yes. Rigid, strict
moralists in what is supposed to be an avocation, a recreation, yes.

Sort of like a hockeypuck in a way. Dense, solid, overly heavy for its
size, with no redeeming esthetics to it. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dick Carroll wrote in message
...
Greg Courville wrote:

I've been a ham for only a month now, and been using these groups for
about 6 weeks.
I really can't stand some of the things that go on here.
Has anybody ever noticed that 8 out of 10 threads on this group (and
many other amateur radio groups) end in a flame war?
It's really shocking how people can start an argument over nothing
which can escalate to vicious strings of insults complete with
profanity, sexual references and terms such as "CBplusser" and
"Knuckle-Dragger".

Then Dick Carroll wrote:

Greg if you want to see how all this began just spend some time in Google
and you canget an educaion. It sure didn't start by old timers belittling
newcomers. In fact it was and IS the exact reverse. Not all newcomers, by
any means, just those on this board who decided to do it, and persist to
this day.

Greg again:

It's just unbelievable to me that while all of the
books talk about how wonderful and helpful hams are, a significant
number of them spend their time cutting each other down over random
issues. I see "newbies" come to these boards for help, and get cut
down by inconsiderate jerks who just feel like making people feel
stupid.

You're making assumptions here that shouldn't, indeed can't, be made.

Now comes Brian:

Assumptions can always be made. That's what makes them assumptions.

Brian:

Just because assumptions can always be made, doesn't mean that
we aren't making the correct ones.

The jerks who show up her complaining about the code test requrement and
blaming all us who just did it, without complaining.

And? Finish the thought.

That thought is complete. It was the NCTA that started this debate, and
turned it into the slugfest it became when they blamed just about everything
bad in this world on those of us hams who were able to learn the Morse
code and pass tests at strictly amateur-level speeds. The code testing
requirements had always been reasonable and were proven to be
achievable by people from all walks of life, even those with severe
communicative disabilities. However, the NCTA, in their need to make
the attempt to prove the code tests to be unreasonable and somehow
irrelevant, were the FIRST ones to resort to the empty rhetoric, negativity,
and name-calling with which we have all had to contend.

That in so doing
learned that Morse code does indeed add substantially to ham radio, to the
point that we believe code testing has a permanent place in ham radio, is
just so much nonsense to them. They already know all about it.

Yet there are those of us who don't believe as you do. We are
constantly attacked.

Incorrect. It is the NCTA's to began the "attacks." In one of my earliest
postings on Fidonet over a decade ago, one of the NCTA replies accused
me of "ethnic cleansing" because I dared to agree with the present code
testing requirements. I surely didn't start out with the notion of making
such rash statements, but I certainly wasn't going to let them go
unanswered, either.

How many hams didn't start out with a lower-level license?
People need to stop beating up on us poor no-coders.

Don't look now, but nobody's beating up on the "poor no-coders" unless
and until those same "poor no-coders" start beating up on us innocent
PCTA's who are merely stating their opinions with passion and
conviction.

Come into ham radio with a proper attitude (note I didn't say THE proper
attitude) and you'll be received just as well as anyone ever was.

Dick is absolutely right. My own radio club is full of No-code Techs, but
because of the fact that, for the most part, they haven't bothered to
place their codeless status under scrutiny by making accusations against
those of us who believe in and support code testing, we all get along
very well, indeed. When dealing with fellow hams in person, I have
never once asked for their license class. However, because my own
is self-evident by the configuration of my call sign, I have many times
been subjected to inquiries regarding my personal stance on code
testing, and then been treated accordingly. And while these are just
a few out of the dozens of hams I have dealt with in the past ten
years, these NCTA's have all followed the same pattern -- they stir
up controversy, focus that controversy on me and other PCTA's,
then drop out of sight the second they realize they're losing the
battle. The sad thing is, if they had only left it out entirely, nobody
would have had to bother with the issue in the first place!

THE proper attitude is what he meant, though. Otherwise enter at your
own risk.

No, Dick said what he meant, and he meant what he said. The NCTA
"attitude," which basically boils down to "I think we need to get rid of
code testing, and if you dare to disagree with me, I'm going to smear
you all over the floor" is the attitude to which he refers.

Don't they
realize that the new people look up to the old-timers?

You REALLY must have not been reading here very closely at all, Greg.
Were that the case *here* you wouldn't have a report to make.

His words are valid. Initially, newcomers do look up to the
old-timers. Till the moment the old-timers start pushing "No CW=No
Ham" ideology.

I don't recall ever "pushing" that ideology until some NCTA pushed the
CW = obsolete, politically incorrect, non-inclusive, racist, bigoted,
homophobic, environmentally damaging, etc. etc. ideologies first.

I must say that
after reading books about how hams help people all over the world and
are generally just a wonderful bunch, these groups have really changed
my view of the amateur radio community.

Don't feel lonesome.
It sure changed my view of ham radio, too. I showed up here several years
ago to engage in civil, sincere discourse on the merits of code testing,
and was immediately set upon by the code haters for my views. It's been
all downhill from there.

DICK was instrumental in the downhill part. And he's been here more
than just "several years." He's working on his 1st decade of bile.

Yup, but Brian has over a decade of NCTA bile under HIS belt!

I don't doubt that even this
thread will end in a violent exchange of profanities and become just
another flame war.

Once again, you will get the treatment you deserve here, at least from me.

So far you're doing OK, I don't blame you for your concern. But I suggest
you might benefit from a bit more knowledge of the background of what has
happened here.

Absolutely.

Brian

I suggest you take your own advice, Brian, and find out just exactly WHO
started the code/no-code debate and why.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say the
General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say
the
General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI


I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of thing.

I don't really believe in the concepts of endorsements for various modes.
The candidate should be required to learn the basics in each of the modes
before getting a license. Or make SSB and FM contingent on passing the
other modes first. They should be the last privileges to be earned rather
than the first. Otherwise we will end up with way too many of the HF
equivalent of "repeater creatures."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE