About Us

July 17th 04, 12:56 PM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

More spectrum is simply the reward system in use. It was chosen in large
part
because it's easy to enforce.

Not only was it easy to enforce but it was selected because it was a
desireable enough reward that people would put in the training to get it.

Utter nonsense, Mama Dee. Spin-like rationalization.

That's a good description of what you post here, Len ;-) ;-) ;-)

Only to the PCTA.

Nope. To anyone who knows the facts.

AMATEUR radio is a hobby, not a national service, not an arm of the
United States Navy or the rest of the military, and not a public safety
organization. Just a hobby involving radio.

It's not "just a hobby".

For some it IS a lifestyle. Their problem, not the governments.

Why is it a "problem"?

So, amateur radio is NOT a hobby?

It's not *just* a hobby.

Would you tell volunteer firefighters and EMTs that what they do is "just a
hobby"?

Prove its vital need to the nation as a national service or an arm of
the military or a public safety organization.

Why? Is that the criteria for something to be more than "just a hobby"?

The FCC hasn't proved that. Only the ham-lifestylers try to prove
that. They NEED the rationalization.

So what's your problem?

But even if it were, what's the difference? If something is "just a hobby",
does that mean there should be no standards, no training, no rules?

Tsk, tsk. Arguing to extemes again?

No. Just asking a question.

What should the standards be?

The FCC isn't chartered to do "training" for radio hams.

Actually, it is.

The FCC doesn't really "set standards," only sets regulations.

Wrong again!

AMATEUR radio long ago CEASED to be a "pool of experienced morse
operators" for any national need.

The description never included the word "Morse", Len.

When did it cease, Len?

Long ago. :-)

When, exactly?

Find all the military morsemen "needs" you can. That be easy, as
there are no such needs.

Find all the commercial communications services you can, count
the "needs" for morsemen. Very few and those be on the Great
Lakes shipping.

What's your point, Len?

And here's a fun fact: The Basis and Purpose never used the phrase
"experienced
morse operators". Just "experienced operators" - no mention of modes.

The nation does NOT need morse operators, haven't for a long time.

How long?

Long time. :-)

You don't know, then.

Most rewards in the real world have little relationship to the work
requested.

More spin crappola.

Well, at least you're honest about your content ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Tsk, tsk. Not nice.

No, you're not nice at all, Len. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Rather nasty comment for a portentious
revered one of the Great Gurus of the newsgrope.

Describing yourself, I see.

The influential morsemen at the League
managed to carve out a separate little morse playground for
themselves with all sorts of fatuous phrases of "national need" and
"importance of a pool of trained operators" and the FCC caved in
to their demands.

When was this? And in what alternate universe?

In the present universe.

Nope. Didn't happen that way.

Those who are busy spinning can't believe it.

Why should anyone believe something that isn't true?

The "pool of trained operators" thing came from FCC, not ARRL.

No kidding? I thought you thought the ARRL regulated all
things in ham radio.

You're wrong. Again.

Learn somethin' every day! Sunnuvagun!

See?

You see it in the home too. Kid asks, "Dad can I borrow the
car?" Parent replies, "After you mow the front & back lawn and run the
edger." There is absolutely no relationship between the two activities.
The kid gets a highly desired reward for work that he/she probably doesn't
care to do but does it anyway to get the reward.

So, the League is a surrogate parent?!? I don't think so.

How many kids have you raised, Len?

On July 4th, two of them. :-)

Right...;-) ;-)

Are all the Amateur Extras surrogate parents now? I don't think so.

You aren't.

Haven't pretended to be, Rev. Jim.

Who is "Rev. Jim"?

You talk to everyone that way, Len. Doesn't work.

You ARE going to misdirect into some "parenting" argument, aren't
you? [your sort of newsgrope tactic]

Nope. It's a valid analogy. Which is why you don't like it.

Dee, quit this infernal nattering about "parentage" and ham radio.

Why, Len? Because it's really quite an accurate analogy?

Who said it is "accurate?"

Me.

You ham lifestylers really get too, too deep into it.

Says who?

Quit trying to sound off like you've got an influential pair.

Pair of what, Len?

Brain halves.

You aren't
a radioactive au pair and this ain't the Children's Hour (even is some
of
the other extras act like children).

The most childish performance I see here is yours, Len.

Then you don't see at all well. Visit an eye doctor for a checkup.

I see fine, Len.

Poor baby. I upset your little session with butt-in buddy, the
Stalker?

Who?

Just face the reality of the matter. Morsemen got their little CW
playground and should be happy.

What *are* you talking about, Len?

The LOWER parts of the HF bands.

You mean the parts where voice modes aren't allowed? Guess what - they're all
wide open for data modes, too. What's the problem?

Professional communicators they
ain't, even if they want, desperately, to be oh, so very pro.

If you're an example of "professional communicator", than I'm glad to be an
amateur.

You are NOT a professional communicator.

Never claimed to be.

You're neither are a professional communicator nor an amateur radio operator,
Len. Just some guy who likes to flame amateur radio newsgroups.

You're on the outside looking in.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test)	N2EY	Policy	6	December 2nd 03 03:45 AM
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC	Brian	Policy	3	October 24th 03 12:02 AM
Amateur Radio NewslineÃ¢â€žÂ¢ Report 1366 Ã‚Â October 17 2003	Radionews	Dx	0	October 17th 03 06:51 PM
Low reenlistment rate	charlesb	Policy	54	September 18th 03 01:57 PM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement.	Keith	Policy	1	July 31st 03 03:46 AM

Menu

About Us