Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

I also don't want some idiot running 200 watts into a 5/8 wave groundplane
on 2 meters next door to me. He may be ignorant, but I am not.


And what is to stop a tech from doing so? (as long as he/she does the RF
exposure analysis ... which will probably show that it's just fine from the
RF exposure standpoint ...)

Jim, your class elitism/prejudice is showing - why don't you stop acting
like all techs are dimwits? Many are more technically accomplished than
many extras.


I think you are pulling this out of context, Carl. The original poster
said that (paraphrasing here) the people opposed to the upgrade are
wrong in part because the Technician and General tests are nearly identical.

Oddly enough, in a later post that same poster went on to note how many
Tower questions there are on the Tech test, yet not on the General test
- a seeming contradiction for nearly identical tests.

I am a "new" Ham, having taken all my tests in modern times. There are
significan differences between the Technician test and the General test
and the Extra test.

Jim was merely supporting adequate testing. As do I. Of course there is
a wide gap in what people consider adequate.

I know I do not consider the Technician test adequate to be classed as
a General. And I doubt I'll ever apologize for thinking that knowledge
is good.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/5/2004 3:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you.

Whew....

Coming from YOU this means absolutely NOTHING.

You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid waste to
your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar and
deceiver.

YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with the
"jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then followed
it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/5/2004 3:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you.

Whew....

Coming from YOU this means absolutely NOTHING.

Poor baby. So far, not a single "meaningful discussion." :-)

Example is just following...

You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid waste
to
your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar and
deceiver.

"Liar?" In one way, to one pair of eyes, that is true

I disrupt the fantasies and wish-fulfillment of someone with reality.

That can be a distinct ego blow.

"Deceiver?" In what way? Not following your imaginations and fantasies
as "truth?"

Reality can be harsh. Try to accept reality as it exists.

YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with the
"jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then
followed
it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric.

Your jackboots wear out? :-)

If being a "ham" means living in a fantasy world of great derring-do in
radio, then I'm certainly not one of those deceivers.

Putz.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still into cussing and personal attacks as "meaningful
discussions?" [not at all a good image of an amateur extra...]

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL

[and NCVEC]

which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by

[written]

examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.

Well said! That's exactly the point.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.

The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions? I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues, so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.

As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid waste
to
your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar and
deceiver.

"Liar?" In one way, to one pair of eyes, that is true

I disrupt the fantasies and wish-fulfillment of someone with reality.

Lennie, you really DO believe the lies and rhetoric you spew
about Amateur Radio, don't you..?!?! Despite having been corrected
and redirected to countless sources of data that contradicts almost
everything you say, you still insist that your putrid lies are valid.

Sheeeesh.

That can be a distinct ego blow.

There's been no blow to MY ego over anything you've "presented" in
this forum. I get aggitated that someone can so overtly lie and
attempt to mislead people without some sort of resounding recourse,
but hey, every creep eventually ahs his day...you will too.

"Deceiver?" In what way? Not following your imaginations and fantasies
as "truth?"

"I am going to get my "extra lite" out of the box".

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"

"I'll send a scanned image of my FCC License to anyone who asks
for it"

Reality can be harsh. Try to accept reality as it exists.

That's not my problem, Lennie...Accepting that mere mortal,
non-engineer lay persons with an FCC license can do more with a radio
than you ever THOUGHT about doing is YOURS.

YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with the
"jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then
followed
it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric.

Your jackboots wear out?

I'll specifically buy a pair next time I visit California, then
see just how much it takes to wear them down...How's that, Lennie?

If being a "ham" means living in a fantasy world of great derring-do in
radio, then I'm certainly not one of those deceivers.

You've never been in ANY world of radio operating, Lennie...You
have been around them, used them as a tool, maybe even played with one
on a bench, but you're incompetent when it comes to OPERATING one.

Putz.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still into cussing and personal attacks as "meaningful
discussions?" [not at all a good image of an amateur extra...]

It's not my image, Lennie. It's yours. You're the putz.



They ought to sue you for defamation by association.

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions?

Being able to correctly answer "HF type questions" gets one an
upgrade? I see (??!).

I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,

'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside. I
never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.


so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.

Different freqs, same ballgame, the basics are the same. Should not
have anything to do with segregating the Tech/General operating
priveleges.


As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Brian Kelly wrote:


"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote



And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions?


Being able to correctly answer "HF type questions" gets one an
upgrade? I see (??!).


I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!


-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,


'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside.

Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But
that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can
insure complete safety.

What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some
relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the
student to use or not to use.

I
never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.

Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days.


so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.


Different freqs, same ballgame, the basics are the same. Should not
have anything to do with segregating the Tech/General operating
priveleges.



As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -


w3rv