| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
September 25th 04, 03:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#83
September 26th 04, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William) Date: 9/24/2004 7:37 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... See how it works? See how WHAT works? Validation! You might want to get back on your meds and improve your attention span. What validation? Hans spoke his personal opinion. That Hans doesn't like me? Oooooooh.....I am soooooo hurt. Nobody -likes you-. You are dislike by some, tolerated by others. The only thing you have going for you is your desire to keep code exams. If you didn't have that you would be kicked to the curb in half a heartbeat. What "desire to keep the code tests", Brian? I have already clearly spoke my clear opinion that the time has past and it's time to move on. And I am wondering from what certified poll you got the "Nobody like you" assertion. If "nobody" inlcudes you, Lennie, Vippy and Hans, I could care less. Hans has proven himself to chastise and demean others about one form of conduct and then steps right on out and does it himself. Gosh, you mean it's not OK to be two-faced? Oh, my! You think the opinion of someone who can't march to his own tune is problematic to me? Are you still marching? Someone order this idiot to "halt." What idiot? And do you think anyone here has the right or the "authority" to order me to do anything? I don't. You wouldn't. More than one person (meaning: other than me) has called Hans "Len with a License". I've never seen that. Not once. Then you've not been paying attention, but that seems to be an on-going problem with you. Not at all, and yet I still have never seen it, thus no validation for your claims. And Lennie is still a liar Pants on fiar... No doubt. And no doubt the never endings there long since lost thier ability to sense danger. "thier" Hi, hi! If my misuse of one word out of thousands is your only "defense", your "position" is even weaker than I assumed. Then you've obviously missed the above, the below, and the last 9 years. You still have yet to prove a single thing, Brian. Get back on your meds. Ibuprofen? Zantac? You keep insisting that I am "off (my) meds", yet you have yet to sepcify what meds you insist I am off, and further refuse to present adequate proof of licensure in any healthcare related discipline that would validate such an assertion. and you still publically admire him For all to see. Yep. Fool that you are. and condone his conduct. I've never witnessed Len threatening to throw bricks through windows, slash tires, or terrorize anyone's wife. I've never done it either, Brian. So what's your point. You create little twisted scenarios where you imagine that other people will do these evil things that you wish will happen to Len and his loved ones. You don't know these other people with evil intent, but you know that they are thinking evil thoughts about Len. Strange how you can know that. Very, very strange. Sorry, Brian...It happens all the time. You dream up twisted little scenarios that actually play out in real life? You should loan your talent to the FBI. I see you ignore reality again. Pehaps if you actually did have some training, education or other experience in evaluating human nature and conduct, it wouldn't come as such a surprise to you. You're probably right. Crazy people always suprise me. I imagine that EVERYone surprises you...Especially when they refuse to accept your unfounded, factless assertions as "true" just based upon your "word". I imagine you can't understand why people take anything you say with a LARGE grain of salt. Or if you read the news once in a while... I read where clairvoyants try to help out on cases but they don't really contribute a damned thing. But, you! You dream up twisted scenarios and they come true! You have a gift. My gift is patience and tolerance of those who are obviously out-of-touch with reality. Such as you and Lennie. One of the events that inspired that actually occured only a few miles from where Lennie lives. A few years ago a man spent a lot of time trying to demand changes to local zoning laws for his own benefit. He spent a great deal of his own time and money to "prove" why he was right and everyone else was wrong. Finally someone got tired of his outrageous allegations and demands and took it upon themselves to induce him to stop. I guess nothing happens in BFTennessee? "BFTennessee"...?!?! Lot's of things happen in Tennessee, Brian, but I don't know where "BFTennessee" is. Can you elaborate? Whatta work of art you are. Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. I leave that for the Nat'l Endowment. Or threaten to "Dial" a person into custody. You'd deserve it, Brian. You said that you were "dialing," and you say that I deserve it. Why didn't anyone show up at my door? I think you lied when you said that you were "dialing." Did you call the authorities or did you lie about it? Not every contact with Human Services generates an investigative contact, Brian. Ask them. Sometimes it's just a note in a file. Then eventually enough notes wind up in that file that when some other intervention becomes necessary, there is "background" from which to proceed. Why are you worried about it..?!?! If your conduct is as you claim it is, then it's just a piece of paper in a dusty file. If it's NOT as you claim...well...then... The only thing that worries me is that a crazy person is on the loose. And he has access to a drug locker. Anything could happen. But nothing does, Brian. Over 10 years as a Nurse and even more as an EMT and Paramedic before that, and never one drop of any controlled substance ever lost on "my watch". How do you account for that? You certainly need the help and observation. I'm good. No. You're not. You're overtly evasive and mistruthful on a wide range of topics. If you did the things you claim then why are you not willing to prove them? Then let's talk about your seven hostile actions. Spill your guts. I've already stated that my military record is not germane, and that if that's all you can "rack up" against me, well more power to you. One point for Brian. Of course we can SUBTRACT that one point since you took it upon yourself to bing private e-mail to the group and violated a promise of privacy. One point AGAINST me for having thought you ethical enough to trust. Now let's get back to RADIO issues and find that Somalia authorization and some proof about those "unlicensed devices in emergency comms" you keep ranting about. You're not. Still waiting on your presentation of credentials upon which you base that assessment, Brian. Start "dialing." We'll see who they pick up. Uh huh. So you didn't call. You lied? Did you not pay attention to what was written already? Why are you so concerned if I did or didn't? If I didn't, no sweat...You can write it off as "newsgroup bravado". If I did, it will be nothing more than a piece of paper in a file...UNLESS they get MORE pieces of paper making similar allegations or some charges of moral turpitude are ever filed against you. Are you concerned that there MAY be OTHER allegations. Brian? What have you done or said that gives you reason to take pause? And why did you not answer my other questions? Steve, K4YZ |
|
#84
October 2nd 04, 03:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Jimmie chastise nursie? Har! The castisement is a very gentle slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. "Naughty boy, Steve, mustn't say such bad words!" will sum it up. What would Len have us do, Mike? Now that is a little more complicated, Jim. While it would seem apparent that Lenover21 would like us to treat Steve in a manner similar to Brian or his own reactions to Steve, I don't think it is that simple. If we did, than he would be deprived of the opportunity to respond to us in criticism of our own reactions toward Steve's postings. Although I am not 100 percent sure (though for statistical purposes am, within accepted errors) I do not think he would enjoy that It is hard to control what Jim posts. Not for me! hehe It would be a lot easier if you were the moderator. I'm not the "moderator" in here. This is an open forum. But Len wants to be the moderator. He seems to want to squelch all opposition to his opinions. Problem is, a few do NOT want that...they want a cozy little chat room filled only with their own kine. They are the ones polluting. Len projects his own actions unto others. In my 7 years of reading rrap, I have seen only *one* case where someone literally told someone else to "shut up". That was when Len told K8MN to "shut up, you little USMC feldwebel" October 2003, I think. (If there are more, I missed them - some posters here are so verbose it's just not practical to read everything they write). I couldn't agree more! Then why do you support and condone their actions by saying nothing against their egregious conduct? That is simply incorrect. I have and still do disagree with what Steve sometimes posts, and I have noted it to him. Jim has also, on more occasions than me. We do not support or condone their actions. What the issue is is that I (and presumably Jim) do not go after people in the manner that you want us to. It isn't my style, and I won't change it to suit you. Nor will I. Perhaps that is the real issue with Len. I think you hit on it some posts back, Mike. The Len/Brian/Steve troika must get some kind of return for all the name calling and insults. Have you ever seen an old married couple where the Husband and wife spend a lot of time bickering at each other? Yet they have been married for years and years. Its what works for them! But that's obviously not enough for Len, so he tries to get a similar setup going with you. It would probably make him happy if you started calling him names, insulting him personally, etc., because then he could return it in kind and then some. Won't work. But instead you just keep on being mild-mannered Mike, not backing down but not returning in kind, either. You won't play his game or get down to his level. Nor will I. Heck, I can't remember all the names Len has invented for me to avoid calling me "Jim" or "N2EY". Let's see....there's "Jimmie" (note the feminized ending), "Jimmie Who", "Rev. Jim", "negative j", "Miccolis", etc. Apparently "Mother Superior" now too! 8^) What purpose does all that serve? For all its sound and fury, it signifies nothing. Since the PCTA first had their hobby-orgasm over a code key. I like Morse Code. In fact I probably *love* Morse Code. But the above is just not correct. And I wouldn't mind being able to better perform Morse code, but don't lose any sleep over it. So that puts us at distinctly different points of the spectrum. Yet we are both PCTA. Go figure! So much for massive generalizations! 8^) They think that all radio communications revolves around morse code and morsemanship. Wrong again! Respectfully so! It hasn't been so for decades, but they are Believers and will not listen to reason. Note the equation of "reason" with "agree with Len". But I'm PCTA and aren't anywhere close to that. Me neither. Yet you've bought into the morsemanship-is-all ethos and condone the polluters. Not true at all. Please don't try to use political spin on what you've posted. You aren't in the political pro leagues yet...they've had centuries to perfect spin and are good at it. hehe, political spin usually takes more than a one sentence paragraph. That's why Len's posts are so long... hehe, I must be your straight man today, Jim! Governments (and all newsgroupies) should obey Them (the PCTA that is) simply because the PCTA are. that would be bad if these folk are oppressing you. But as the (probably) most prolific poster here, how can that be? Tsk. You fail to understand simple sarcasm, Coslo. Sarcasm doesn't work well in print. No one is "oppressing" me. BINGO! You post as you se fit. Yet Len tells others here to shut up - literally, as in the "feldwebel" post, and in other ways as well. I'm simply persistent and confrontational on the issue of keeping a morse code test for any radio license in this new millennium. Without ever telling us why. And in the end, accomplish very little. That test is likely to go away in spite of your antagonism PCTA clearly wish to oppress those against the code test (evident from their public statements) by intimidation, How are a bunch of radio geeks going to intimidate me? personal insults, That one is a null. Plenty of that to go around on all sides. or whatever means they can use...which includes considerable fantasy and wild imaginations on their parts. Also a null. Plenty of that to go around on all sides. Exactly. I simply point out the "error of their ways" (a metaphor) and illustrate how mythical their fraternal-order rules are...rules kept long, long after their validity has expired. And of course your method doesn't work very well for changing anyone's mind. But it works perfectly if you want to engage in some nose tweaking for the sheer joy of irritating someone. Which says it all, really. hmmm, might be onto something here........... If the PCTA feel it so necessary to make all ham radio newcomers learn morse to get a license, they should petition the FCC to rename the ARS to what suits them - Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Does knowing Morse code eliminate other forms of communication, including modern ones? Old technology and new technology can coexist with each other. Irrelevant reasons. Says who? The morse code test continues on in U.S. amateur radio regulations, absolutely required for any authorized amateur radio transmissions below 30 MHz. So what? No morse code test passing-for-authorization is required of any small boat owner, pilot, land mobile radio operator, broadcaster, etc.,etc., etc. operating below 30 MHz. No test at all is needed Those are other radio services, not amateur radio. No morse code test passing-for-authorization is required for any military personnel operating military radios below 30 MHz. I suspect no test is needed, beyond training to operate the equipment. Could be wrong. Amateur radio is different from those other services. For example, we're allowed to design/build/repair/align and operate our stations without any certification or other "type approval" rules. We aren't limited to predefined channels or spot frequencies, except on 60 meters. We have a large selection of modes and techniques available, with very few regulations hindering them. A half century ago there was NO requirement that military personnel had to test for morsemanship to operate high-power HF transmitters using then-state-of-the-art communications techniques. All us signmalmen "got the message through" (familiar phrase of the Army Signal Corps). Here we see a typical example of Len-distortion. He's obviously talking about his time at ADA. Now - did the US Army not use any morse code after 1952? How about the US Navy? COast Guard? Air Force? Marines? Citizens Band Radio Service operating below 30 MHz became legal in 1958 in the USA, absolutely no morsemanship test involved. Not only that, CB became licenseless a few years later. [1958 is 46 years ago, back when nearly all radios still used vacuum tubes] More distortions. 27 MHz cb was and is limited to low power using only approved equipment on a set of channels all close in frequency. No transmitter adjustments at all except channel selection. No homebrewing allowed, no modifications to equipment allowed. And the license requirement was dropped in the 1970s, almost 20 years after the 27 MHz channels were authorized. Most important of all, cb is hardly the example amateur radio should follow. No test at all is required for Citizen' band radio. Perhaps Len wants *all* amateur radio tests eliminated. I am beginning to suspect that may be the case.. A half century ago, teleprinters were operating at continuous through- put of 60 WPM. A decade later that was 100 WPM and FSK band- width was decreased by half of that at 60 WPM. When solid-state electronics became more prevalent, teleprinter started to become known as "data" with sustained rates of 300 WPM, then 1200 WPM, then 4800, 9600, and finally, 56K WPM...whether by wire or radio. "Teleprinters" (which we hams call "RTTY machines" were large, heavy, noisy and very expensive. Most hams could not afford to buy them and their related equipment new. Some hams had machines through surplus and MARS channels, but until the PC era, RTTY modes were pretty much a limited specialty in ham radio. Do you think Len ever bought a new teleprinter for hobby use with his own money? snort! A half century ago, television in the USA was beginning to standardize on color video transmission, then adding stereophonic audio (some time after audio-only FM stereophonic transmission was standard). In time analog video-audio gave way to improved picture-and-sound digital TV with more information in the same EM bandwidth. International satellite relay of communications was an accomplished fact four decades ago and now all the "equatorial" comm sat orbital spots are filled. No dependence on the vagaries of the ionosphere to do international communications. And no use of HF. All of amateur VHF/UHF has been available without a code test since 1991. GPSS has been with the world (along with GLONASS) for two decades and with civilian users for over a decade, yielding precise terrestrial location determination AND precise time...all over radio. Radio clocks are available at consumer electronics stores for under $30 that update themselves automatically to precise time from several LF broadcast services. No need to tie into wire services or listen on HF for precise time...the little inexpensive radio clocks offer one-second-per-day accuracy, along with calendar information without operator assistance. Should WWV be shut down? All those people with the ill named "atomic clocks" might be disappointed! The Internet went public in 1991, 13 years ago, and spread like wild- fire to all parts of the world. Millions upon millions use the Internet daily, geographic boundaries seldom a limit, with no disturbance from the ionosphere affecting HF. It is mass communications worldwide. And it's not radio. Has the internet replaced amateur radio? Cellular telephony, enabled through radio, has become a standard means of communications for Americans. So much so that one in three Americans has a cellular telephone subscription...about 100 million using those tiny, low-microwave-radio-range, portable radios to access the telephone infrastructure. Not on HF either. And of course they are so much more reliable than olde tyme Hamme radio! All that while, during a veritable many-quantum-level-jumps in technology, U.S. amateur radio "qualifications" (test regulations) have required the morsemanship ability test to authorize operation below 30 MHz by amateurs. That is still required. That's a good thing. Can you say that U.S. amateur radio regulations (and testing) is behind the times? Nope. It most certainly is. Not at all. Has been for a long time. Hams still use Morse Code. Extensively. Therefore, a Morse Code test is appropriate. No, i can't. Unless you are saying you want no testing at all for HF access, your argument is only half formed. If you ARE saying you want no testing for the Amateur Radio service, Well, I *most* respectfully disagree! Bingo. I guess history must be bad, huh? For U.S. amateur radio in comparison to the rest of the radio world, it IS "bad." What is bad about history? What is bad about doing what someone likes to do? To use one of Cecil's phrases: "What is wrong with live and let live?" "Bad" in that it lags far beyond the state of the radio art...supported only by the radio designers and manufacturers using developments from the rest of radio to modernize amateur transceivers so that they can best "work" on-off keyed carriers a la the 1920s. Ah - so it's not just the Morse Code *test* which Len thinks is bad, but Morse Code *use* by hams! I never did understand that argument anyhow. SSB is what, nearly a century old? FM? WAY too much hangup on how we modulate our signals. Here's a question. Digital is more "up to date" than say SSB. Should digital voice be mandated, and SSB phased out ASAP? But wait! Unless we are willing to accept apparently unacceptable audio quality, we have to use a signal that is wider than a SSB signal. And the digital units that I have seen have a little quirk of having to receive the beginning of a transmission in order to decode the signal. So much for listening for a CQ. If you don't hear the beginning, you don't hear anything!!!!! But it's closer to the state of the art, it *must* be better. not State of radio art would not pe permitted in the ARS. By whom would it be prohibited? You do know don't ya? There's only a few PCTA extras in here. But, they are resolute and quite uncivil in condemnation of all those who do not love, honor and obey morsemanship. All readers have seen that. I'm PCTA and an Extra. I respectfully disagree with that statement. That is a given. You must support your klan. I do hope you use fitted sheets. Here we go with the insults.... Oh dear! Note that Len assumes you are a white male, Mike... At least the NCTA and interested others don't call anyone names! ;^) Poor PCTA...they think the slightest negativism on their mythical championship of morsemanhood is a "personal insult." I think the person who wrote "shut up, you little USMC feldwebel" kind of disproves that... hmmm, then why do you think that I should condemn Steve so badly? He is doing nothing that you do not do. Null. PCTA simply refuses to acknowledge that the world has advanced and that amateur radio can no longer by "qualified" by radiotelegraphy skill demonstrations. PCTA wound far too easily. Respectfully disagree. You make the statement, please provide the proof. "The world has advanced" means "you should not use or enjoy Morse Code any more". Or SSB or RTTY or anything else not "in the now". I'm curious just why people would think that using a computer is "High Tech" or why using a little walkie-talkie that only works for part of the time is "High Tech". It's not high tech, its technology that is reduced to practice. Morse code is an old comm method. So what? I guess people who like sailboats, stick-shift cars, horseback riding, bicycles and a bunch of other pursuits should listen up too... For most folks, that rule-by-intimidation isn't comfortable, isn't open, certainly isn't conducive (in any way) to discussion...the intimidation consists mostly of diss and cuss at non-morse folks, zero discussion. hmmm, I don't see it that way at all. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. NOT in here, according to the little clique of PCTA "regulars." ALL must do as they had to do...or be silent. "They rule." Funny - I only recall one person telling another to shut up here... Proven wrong every time you post. I find it hard to understand why you keep saying that sort of thing, when it obviously isn't the case. The shrinks call it "projection", Mike. Say something often enough, and at least you will believe it!! 8^) They try to enforce their rule by any means possible, usually that of the personal insult against anyone differing from their exhalted opinion. Tsk. Anyone that would be intimidated by *that* should probably avoid Netnews! 8^) Not conducive to a hobby activity. More conducive to a dictatorship. Not been my experience as a Ham. You see bad, and declare that all is bad. I see bad, and continue looking until I find the good. It is there. You *can* turn it around. You probably think I'm being condescending again, huh? Nope - just honest. Well said, Mike. Thanks, I'll probably receive another dose tho'.... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#85
October 2nd 04, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I always try not to ridicule people. My folks taught me better. Or tried to! ;^) That's a good trait and you get a high-five for that. Pity that some other folks' kids weren't taught better. I'm going on a vacation for a bit, so won't be able to reply for a few days. But let us note this. We have been carrying on for some (weeks?) now, you and I, and despite our obvious disagreements, have managed to maintain a fairly civil conversation. I don't know what that means, aside from the fact that it can be done! 8^) Have fun while I'm away - I'm not ignoring you, just not at a computer! - Mike KB3EIA - Give Darkguard my best. 73, bb Didn't see the dark one during my vacation, Brian. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#86
October 2nd 04, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Jimmie chastise nursie? Har! The castisement is a very gentle slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. "Naughty boy, Steve, mustn't say such bad words!" will sum it up. What would Len have us do, Mike? Now that is a little more complicated, Jim. While it would seem apparent that Lenover21 would like us to treat Steve in a manner similar to Brian or his own reactions to Steve, I don't think it is that simple. Agreed. If we did, than he would be deprived of the opportunity to respond to us in criticism of our own reactions toward Steve's postings. Although I am not 100 percent sure (though for statistical purposes am, within accepted errors) I do not think he would enjoy that Agree again, but the question remains unanswered. It seems to me that the only thing which would please Len would be for us to change to NCTA opinions and respond to Steve the same way he does. In other words, it's OK to behave like Len if and only if you agree with all of his opinions. It is hard to control what Jim posts. Not for me! hehe The idea that others are somehow responsible for how Steve posts is faulty. Brian has admitted to intentionally insulting Steve even when Steve did not insult Brian. "Do as Biran says, not as Brian does".... It would be a lot easier if you were the moderator. I'm not the "moderator" in here. This is an open forum. But Len wants to be the moderator. He seems to want to squelch all opposition to his opinions. Problem is, a few do NOT want that...they want a cozy little chat room filled only with their own kine. They are the ones polluting. Len projects his own actions unto others. In my 7 years of reading rrap, I have seen only *one* case where someone literally told someone else to "shut up". That was when Len told K8MN to "shut up, you little USMC feldwebel" October 2003, I think. (If there are more, I missed them - some posters here are so verbose it's just not practical to read everything they write). Perhaps Len just wants all opposing opinions squelched. I couldn't agree more! Then why do you support and condone their actions by saying nothing against their egregious conduct? That is simply incorrect. I have and still do disagree with what Steve sometimes posts, and I have noted it to him. Jim has also, on more occasions than me. We do not support or condone their actions. What the issue is is that I (and presumably Jim) do not go after people in the manner that you want us to. It isn't my style, and I won't change it to suit you. Nor will I. Perhaps that is the real issue with Len. I think you hit on it some posts back, Mike. The Len/Brian/Steve troika must get some kind of return for all the name calling and insults. Have you ever seen an old married couple where the Husband and wife spend a lot of time bickering at each other? Yet they have been married for years and years. Its what works for them! There was an old radio series called "The Bickersons" which was just that. Whether such inteeraction "works" is debatable. I say it's dysfunctional and destructive. It usually exists because the people involved cannot imagine anything else. But that's obviously not enough for Len, so he tries to get a similar setup going with you. It would probably make him happy if you started calling him names, insulting him personally, etc., because then he could return it in kind and then some. Won't work. But instead you just keep on being mild-mannered Mike, not backing down but not returning in kind, either. You won't play his game or get down to his level. Nor will I. Heck, I can't remember all the names Len has invented for me to avoid calling me "Jim" or "N2EY". Let's see....there's "Jimmie" (note the feminized ending), "Jimmie Who", "Rev. Jim", "negative j", "Miccolis", etc. Apparently "Mother Superior" now too! 8^) Same old nonsense. What purpose does all that serve? For all its sound and fury, it signifies nothing. I say it signifies immaturity and lack of imagination on the part of the name-caller. Since the PCTA first had their hobby-orgasm over a code key. I like Morse Code. In fact I probably *love* Morse Code. But the above is just not correct. And I wouldn't mind being able to better perform Morse code, but don't lose any sleep over it. So that puts us at distinctly different points of the spectrum. Yet we are both PCTA. Because we see the value of the code and the code test. Go figure! So much for massive generalizations! 8^) It's a cornerstone of Len's thinking. They think that all radio communications revolves around morse code and morsemanship. Wrong again! Respectfully so! It hasn't been so for decades, but they are Believers and will not listen to reason. Note the equation of "reason" with "agree with Len". But I'm PCTA and aren't anywhere close to that. Me neither. Yet you've bought into the morsemanship-is-all ethos and condone the polluters. Not true at all. Please don't try to use political spin on what you've posted. You aren't in the political pro leagues yet...they've had centuries to perfect spin and are good at it. hehe, political spin usually takes more than a one sentence paragraph. That's why Len's posts are so long... hehe, I must be your straight man today, Jim! Sometimes all one has to do is write the plain, simple truth, Mike.. Governments (and all newsgroupies) should obey Them (the PCTA that is) simply because the PCTA are. that would be bad if these folk are oppressing you. But as the (probably) most prolific poster here, how can that be? Tsk. You fail to understand simple sarcasm, Coslo. Sarcasm doesn't work well in print. No one is "oppressing" me. BINGO! You post as you se fit. Yet Len tells others here to shut up - literally, as in the "feldwebel" post, and in other ways as well. So who is oppressing whom? If any of us told Len to shut up, he'd go ballistic, complain to ISPs, etc. I'm simply persistent and confrontational on the issue of keeping a morse code test for any radio license in this new millennium. Without ever telling us why. And in the end, accomplish very little. That test is likely to go away in spite of your antagonism PCTA clearly wish to oppress those against the code test (evident from their public statements) by intimidation, How are a bunch of radio geeks going to intimidate me? personal insults, That one is a null. Plenty of that to go around on all sides. or whatever means they can use...which includes considerable fantasy and wild imaginations on their parts. Also a null. Plenty of that to go around on all sides. Exactly. I simply point out the "error of their ways" (a metaphor) and illustrate how mythical their fraternal-order rules are...rules kept long, long after their validity has expired. And of course your method doesn't work very well for changing anyone's mind. But it works perfectly if you want to engage in some nose tweaking for the sheer joy of irritating someone. Which says it all, really. hmmm, might be onto something here........... I think so! If the PCTA feel it so necessary to make all ham radio newcomers learn morse to get a license, they should petition the FCC to rename the ARS to what suits them - Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Does knowing Morse code eliminate other forms of communication, including modern ones? Old technology and new technology can coexist with each other. watta concept Irrelevant reasons. Says who? The morse code test continues on in U.S. amateur radio regulations, absolutely required for any authorized amateur radio transmissions below 30 MHz. So what? No morse code test passing-for-authorization is required of any small boat owner, pilot, land mobile radio operator, broadcaster, etc.,etc., etc. operating below 30 MHz. No test at all is needed Those are other radio services, not amateur radio. No morse code test passing-for-authorization is required for any military personnel operating military radios below 30 MHz. I suspect no test is needed, beyond training to operate the equipment. Could be wrong. Amateur radio is different from those other services. For example, we're allowed to design/build/repair/align and operate our stations without any certification or other "type approval" rules. We aren't limited to predefined channels or spot frequencies, except on 60 meters. We have a large selection of modes and techniques available, with very few regulations hindering them. A half century ago there was NO requirement that military personnel had to test for morsemanship to operate high-power HF transmitters using then-state-of-the-art communications techniques. All us signmalmen "got the message through" (familiar phrase of the Army Signal Corps). Here we see a typical example of Len-distortion. He's obviously talking about his time at ADA. Now - did the US Army not use any morse code after 1952? How about the US Navy? COast Guard? Air Force? Marines? Of course they did. Citizens Band Radio Service operating below 30 MHz became legal in 1958 in the USA, absolutely no morsemanship test involved. Not only that, CB became licenseless a few years later. [1958 is 46 years ago, back when nearly all radios still used vacuum tubes] More distortions. 27 MHz cb was and is limited to low power using only approved equipment on a set of channels all close in frequency. No transmitter adjustments at all except channel selection. No homebrewing allowed, no modifications to equipment allowed. And the license requirement was dropped in the 1970s, almost 20 years after the 27 MHz channels were authorized. Most important of all, cb is hardly the example amateur radio should follow. No test at all is required for Citizen' band radio. Perhaps Len wants *all* amateur radio tests eliminated. I am beginning to suspect that may be the case.. Me too. Make amateur radio just like cb. No legal homebrewing, no tests, no Morse code at all. A half century ago, teleprinters were operating at continuous through- put of 60 WPM. A decade later that was 100 WPM and FSK band- width was decreased by half of that at 60 WPM. When solid-state electronics became more prevalent, teleprinter started to become known as "data" with sustained rates of 300 WPM, then 1200 WPM, then 4800, 9600, and finally, 56K WPM...whether by wire or radio. "Teleprinters" (which we hams call "RTTY machines") were large, heavy, noisy and very expensive. Most hams could not afford to buy them and their related equipment new. Some hams had machines through surplus and MARS channels, but until the PC era, RTTY modes were pretty much a limited specialty in ham radio. We had some RTTY stuff at the Penn ham club station. None of it bought new. I got pretty good at using it. Do you think Len ever bought a new teleprinter for hobby use with his own money? snort! but that's what he suggests we hams do! Here's some more points: -Those RTTY machines were noisy as heck. Unless a ham had a shack with pretty good sound isolation, everyone in the house could hear the machine banging away. But when operating CW, all that's needed is to put on headphones and nobody else is bothered by the sound. (The sound was beautiful to us hams, but nearby classrooms didn't appreciate it). -Those RTTY machines required paper and ribbons to operate. While not expensive, it was an expense item. You couldn't put just any paper in them. A half century ago, television in the USA was beginning to standardize on color video transmission, then adding stereophonic audio (some time after audio-only FM stereophonic transmission was standard). In time analog video-audio gave way to improved picture-and-sound digital TV with more information in the same EM bandwidth. International satellite relay of communications was an accomplished fact four decades ago and now all the "equatorial" comm sat orbital spots are filled. No dependence on the vagaries of the ionosphere to do international communications. And no use of HF. All of amateur VHF/UHF has been available without a code test since 1991. And for a 5 wpm code test even longer. GPSS has been with the world (along with GLONASS) for two decades and with civilian users for over a decade, yielding precise terrestrial location determination AND precise time...all over radio. Radio clocks are available at consumer electronics stores for under $30 that update themselves automatically to precise time from several LF broadcast services. No need to tie into wire services or listen on HF for precise time...the little inexpensive radio clocks offer one-second-per-day accuracy, along with calendar information without operator assistance. No use of HF either. Should WWV be shut down? All those people with the ill named "atomic clocks" might be disappointed! What you're really seeing is a list of reasons why *HF* isn't needed anymore.... The Internet went public in 1991, 13 years ago, and spread like wild- fire to all parts of the world. Millions upon millions use the Internet daily, geographic boundaries seldom a limit, with no disturbance from the ionosphere affecting HF. It is mass communications worldwide. And it's not radio. Has the internet replaced amateur radio? Note the lack of answers... Cellular telephony, enabled through radio, has become a standard means of communications for Americans. So much so that one in three Americans has a cellular telephone subscription...about 100 million using those tiny, low-microwave-radio-range, portable radios to access the telephone infrastructure. Not on HF either. And of course they are so much more reliable than olde tyme Hamme radio! Of course! But consider the billions spent to build the enormous infrastructure. And note that the whole cellular system is based on the idea that radio only carries the signal the short distance from the customer to the nearest cell site, not radio the whole way. All that while, during a veritable many-quantum-level-jumps in technology, U.S. amateur radio "qualifications" (test regulations) have required the morsemanship ability test to authorize operation below 30 MHz by amateurs. That is still required. That's a good thing. Because amateur radio has different goals, purposes and resources. Can you say that U.S. amateur radio regulations (and testing) is behind the times? Nope. It most certainly is. Not at all. Has been for a long time. Hams still use Morse Code. Extensively. Therefore, a Morse Code test is appropriate. No, i can't. Unless you are saying you want no testing at all for HF access, your argument is only half formed. If you ARE saying you want no testing for the Amateur Radio service, Well, I *most* respectfully disagree! Bingo. Note that Len never says what he wants something to be, only what it should not be. Except for his never-retracted demand that FCC enact an age requirement of 14 years for any class of ham license. That age-requirement thing is important because Len provided absolutely no evidence of any problems caused in the ARS by the licensing of younger people. Not *one* example. Not *one* statistic, enforcement case, or other example. But he somehow knows that such a requirement is needed, even though it has never been part of US regulations. I guess history must be bad, huh? For U.S. amateur radio in comparison to the rest of the radio world, it IS "bad." What is bad about history? What is bad about doing what someone likes to do? To use one of Cecil's phrases: "What is wrong with live and let live?" "Bad" in that it lags far beyond the state of the radio art...supported only by the radio designers and manufacturers using developments from the rest of radio to modernize amateur transceivers so that they can best "work" on-off keyed carriers a la the 1920s. Ah - so it's not just the Morse Code *test* which Len thinks is bad, but Morse Code *use* by hams! I never did understand that argument anyhow. SSB is what, nearly a century old? FM? WAY too much hangup on how we modulate our signals. SSB in theory dates to 1915; in practice on radio to the mid 1920s (LF) and very early 1930s (HF). Practical FM dates to the 1930s (btw, I saw the actual pioneering FM equipment developed, built and used by Major Armstrong). And of course Reginald A Fessenden was using AM in 1900, and achieved 2 way transatlantic AM voice operation in 1906. Here's a question. Digital is more "up to date" than say SSB. Should digital voice be mandated, and SSB phased out ASAP? Why not? It's what cell phones use.... But wait! Unless we are willing to accept apparently unacceptable audio quality, we have to use a signal that is wider than a SSB signal. And the digital units that I have seen have a little quirk of having to receive the beginning of a transmission in order to decode the signal. So much for listening for a CQ. If you don't hear the beginning, you don't hear anything!!!!! Does any other service "call CQ" anymore? Or operate on random frequencies instead of predetermined channels? But it's closer to the state of the art, it *must* be better. not "State of the art" is a term invented to sell things. Nothing more. It is used when A wants B to buy what A has to sell, to replace whatever B has that works. State of radio art would not pe permitted in the ARS. By whom would it be prohibited? You do know don't ya? No - really. If somebody wants to try out something new, they can do it as a ham, with very few exceptions (like encryption). Hams are already using digital voice on HF. If Len or somebody like him really wanted to do "state of radio art" on ham radio, all they'd need would be a license and maybe an STA. But that's not what it's about. There's only a few PCTA extras in here. But, they are resolute and quite uncivil in condemnation of all those who do not love, honor and obey morsemanship. All readers have seen that. I'm PCTA and an Extra. I respectfully disagree with that statement. That is a given. You must support your klan. I do hope you use fitted sheets. Here we go with the insults.... Oh dear! Note that Len assumes you are a white male, Mike... Also assumes that about me. At least the NCTA and interested others don't call anyone names! ;^) Poor PCTA...they think the slightest negativism on their mythical championship of morsemanhood is a "personal insult." I think the person who wrote "shut up, you little USMC feldwebel" kind of disproves that... hmmm, then why do you think that I should condemn Steve so badly? He is doing nothing that you do not do. Null. "Do as Len says, not as Len does" PCTA simply refuses to acknowledge that the world has advanced and that amateur radio can no longer by "qualified" by radiotelegraphy skill demonstrations. PCTA wound far too easily. Respectfully disagree. You make the statement, please provide the proof. "The world has advanced" means "you should not use or enjoy Morse Code any more". Or SSB or RTTY or anything else not "in the now". Correct. Not "state of the art". I'm curious just why people would think that using a computer is "High Tech" or why using a little walkie-talkie that only works for part of the time is "High Tech". It's not high tech, its technology that is reduced to practice. I disagree! "High Tech" is just another sales phrase. Morse code is an old comm method. So what? Len doesn't like it. Therefore, he says it must go away. Not just the test, the code itself. I guess people who like sailboats, stick-shift cars, horseback riding, bicycles and a bunch of other pursuits should listen up too... Heck, I run for fun and fitness. Very old fashioned. Guess that should not be allowed either. Ever read Orwell's "1984", Mike? One of the minor themes in that book was that the mindset of "newer is better" needed to be implanted in everyone's head early one. "Ending is better than mending" was a constant theme. Even children's games had to be made more complex, and requiring lots of specialized equipment, to keep consumption high. The same mindset opposes simplicity in all things. For most folks, that rule-by-intimidation isn't comfortable, isn't open, certainly isn't conducive (in any way) to discussion...the intimidation consists mostly of diss and cuss at non-morse folks, zero discussion. hmmm, I don't see it that way at all. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. NOT in here, according to the little clique of PCTA "regulars." Coming from the author of the "feldwebel post", that's almost surreal. ALL must do as they had to do...or be silent. "They rule." Funny - I only recall one person telling another to shut up here... Proven wrong every time you post. I find it hard to understand why you keep saying that sort of thing, when it obviously isn't the case. The shrinks call it "projection", Mike. Say something often enough, and at least you will believe it!! 8^) Exactly They try to enforce their rule by any means possible, usually that of the personal insult against anyone differing from their exhalted opinion. Tsk. Anyone that would be intimidated by *that* should probably avoid Netnews! 8^) Not conducive to a hobby activity. More conducive to a dictatorship. Like telling people to shut up... Not been my experience as a Ham. You see bad, and declare that all is bad. I see bad, and continue looking until I find the good. It is there. You *can* turn it around. You probably think I'm being condescending again, huh? Nope - just honest. Well said, Mike. Thanks, I'll probably receive another dose tho'.... 8^) Of course! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#87
October 3rd 04, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Jimmie chastise nursie? Har! The castisement is a very gentle slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. "Naughty boy, Steve, mustn't say such bad words!" will sum it up. What would Len have us do, Mike? Now that is a little more complicated, Jim. While it would seem apparent that Lenover21 would like us to treat Steve in a manner similar to Brian or his own reactions to Steve, I don't think it is that simple. Agreed. Tsk. PCTA extra Double Standard hanging out for all to see...! :-) If we did, than he would be deprived of the opportunity to respond to us in criticism of our own reactions toward Steve's postings. Although I am not 100 percent sure (though for statistical purposes am, within accepted errors) I do not think he would enjoy that Agree again, but the question remains unanswered. Tsk, it's not even a "question" to the PCTA. Simply do as they tell one to do and that, intrinsically, is "without error!" :-) It seems to me that the only thing which would please Len would be for us to change to NCTA opinions and respond to Steve the same way he does. In other words, it's OK to behave like Len if and only if you agree with all of his opinions. PCTA extra Double Standard: It's okay to treat NCTAs like dirt, smutz, river bottom slime, etc., because the PCTA think they deserve it. Blow the sanctimonium for any arrogant elitist PCTA behaving every which way but loose 'cause they be "okay." :-) It is hard to control what Jim posts. Not for me! hehe The idea that others are somehow responsible for how Steve posts is faulty. Riiiight...all those who oppose nursie are "at fault!" [from the PCTA extra Double Standard Handbook] Gotta love the rationalizing carried out to absurdity by the PCTA. Perhaps Len just wants all opposing opinions squelched. No "perhaps," "sweetums" (a Kellie-ism). It's impossible to squelch the PCTA...they don't have squelch controls...but they have lots of knobs that get tweaked... :-) Have you ever seen an old married couple where the Husband and wife spend a lot of time bickering at each other? Yet they have been married for years and years. Its what works for them! There was an old radio series called "The Bickersons" which was just that. Wow! Time Machine Time! That radio series starring Don Ameche and Frances Langford was a bit BEFORE Jimmie's LIVE listening? Is Jimmie's "other" hobby listening to CDs of OLD radio shows? :-) Whether such inteeraction "works" is debatable. I say it's dysfunctional and destructive. It usually exists because the people involved cannot imagine anything else. Tsk. Sounds like another person needs their "psychological credentials" checked for authenticity. :-) For all its sound and fury, it signifies nothing. I say it signifies immaturity and lack of imagination on the part of the name-caller. Tsk. In that case, under those rules, all the PCTA in here are chin-deep in IMMATURITY. It's a given that their "imagination" is limited to fantasies of maintaining the standards and practices of the 1930s into this new millennium... And I wouldn't mind being able to better perform Morse code, but don't lose any sleep over it. So that puts us at distinctly different points of the spectrum. Yet we are both PCTA. Because we see the value of the code and the code test. The Holy Grail of the Church of St. Hiram. What next? "The Amateur's Code" transformed to The Ark of the Covenant? Talk about blowing their own shofar...! hehe, I must be your straight man today, Jim! Sometimes all one has to do is write the plain, simple truth, Mike.. Most of the time my replies "seem to write themselves!" :-) [guess who wrote that phrase? hee hee] So who is oppressing whom? If any of us told Len to shut up, he'd go ballistic, complain to ISPs, etc. Oh, my, Jimmie KNOWS the future! :-) Several in here have stated publicly, "be quiet and take the damn test!" That's rather close to being told "shut up" to ordinary folk. PCTA extra Double Standard does not recognize such things as nasty. They can say it but no NCTA can. :-) Now - did the US Army not use any morse code after 1952? How about the US Navy? COast Guard? Air Force? Marines? Of course they did. And Jimmie and Mikey were THERE to prove it! [gotta love it] Tsk. Jimmie and Mikey ought to look beyond the ARRL phrases and ask the military what is actually used. One on-line source is the USAF's free download "From Flares to Satellites," available at the USAF Communications Command website. An informative small book. I've mentioned that before in here. Matters not to Jimmie and Mikey because they WERE THERE and KNOW? Riiiight...in their dreams they were... I've pointed out all sorts of references and sources of information for quite a while in here on the REST of the radio world and what is used there...but "that does not apply." The PCTA still think that morsemanship is a required skill in the U.S. military and that radiotelegraphers are "still needed!" Wrong, of course, but it seems that the PCTA extras just don't believe it...it defies their Belief System. Perhaps Len wants *all* amateur radio tests eliminated. I am beginning to suspect that may be the case.. Me too. Make amateur radio just like cb. No legal homebrewing, no tests, no Morse code at all. Tsk. ERROR. WRONG. INCORRECT. I've advocated TOUGHER written tests for U.S. amateur radio, never total elimination of the written test. That's in Google. I haven't mentioned that in the last few years because there's too much ignorance of both theory and regulations on the part of those self-righteous PCTA. Do you think Len ever bought a new teleprinter for hobby use with his own money? snort! but that's what he suggests we hams do! I've never suggested that. I've bought and contributed three surplus Western Union Model 19s to charity, a group that overhauled TTYs for use by deaf people. That was before the solid-state TDDs (Telecommunicaitons Devices for the Deaf) became more commonplace, less expensive and (lately) having a subsidy by various government plants to aid the deaf. Are you now going to search through Google again looking for something that says "I suggested that hams use teleprinters?" Electronic terminals that can emulate teleprinters of any rate have been around since 1975, almost 30 years. The IBM PC has been around since 1981 (at least) and that is 23 years ago; it can emulate a teleprinter very well just by using software for that purpose. -Those RTTY machines were noisy as heck. Unless a ham had a shack with pretty good sound isolation, everyone in the house could hear the machine banging away. But when operating CW, all that's needed is to put on headphones and nobody else is bothered by the sound. (The sound was beautiful to us hams, but nearby classrooms didn't appreciate it). Those weren't "RTTY" machines...they were TTY machines. The R isn't there unless it is connected to a radio transmitting apparatus. Tsk. So, for at least 29 years there have been very SILENT electronic terminals available which could be used in any residence...much like personal computers are used today in about one household in ten in the USA. Tsk, tsk. For all the "poll information" from Jimmie, one would think that hams "didn't use teleprinter mechanisms because of the noise." That doesn't seem to be the case with several ham user groups involved with actual RTTY. -Those RTTY machines required paper and ribbons to operate. While not expensive, it was an expense item. You couldn't put just any paper in them. Wow! "Big drawback!" Cheap paper on a roll is "so difficult to get!" BS. ERROR. INCORRECT. From Model 15 to Model 33 Teletype Corporation teleprinters, the ribbons were standard typewriter ribbons one can get today at Staples and Office Depot. For that matter anyone can buy paper rolls at those places today. I get the picture of Jimmie busy "recycling" paper pulp to make the greyish notepads he uses to design tube equipment in the 1990s...to fit with the alleged "$100" cost of the "famous" Type 7. The felt-tip ink marker used to make "front panel markings" on that Type 7 are an "expense item!" :-) And no use of HF. All of amateur VHF/UHF has been available without a code test since 1991. And for a 5 wpm code test even longer. Wow! "The world of radio" open to anyone who can pass a morse test! Wow! [bwahahahahahhahahahahhoohoohoohoohoo] Myself and others were operating HF transmitters 51 years without one single morse test and NO requirements for an amateur license! Sunnuvagun! GPSS has been with the world (along with GLONASS) for two decades and with civilian users for over a decade, yielding precise terrestrial location determination AND precise time...all over radio. Radio clocks are available at consumer electronics stores for under $30 that update themselves automatically to precise time from several LF broadcast services. No need to tie into wire services or listen on HF for precise time...the little inexpensive radio clocks offer one-second-per-day accuracy, along with calendar information without operator assistance. No use of HF either. WRONG. ERROR. INCORRECT. Heathkit had a "radio clock" which tuned to WWV on HF. To jog your memory (since it wasn't an item of ham lore), that is mentioned on the NIST website under the history of radio clocks. Should WWV be shut down? All those people with the ill named "atomic clocks" might be disappointed! What you're really seeing is a list of reasons why *HF* isn't needed anymore.... Tsk. You think (imagine) conjectures, therefor it "is?" Tsk, tsk. Read the FCC's own Report & Order on why hams got only five "channels" and not a whole band (to play in). It's on public view. Do you need tips on how to get there on the 'web? Has the internet replaced amateur radio? Note the lack of answers... Tsk, you demand IMMEDIATE answers to YOUR questions! :-) Poor baby...stamping your little feet and having a tantrum? Of course! But consider the billions spent to build the enormous infrastructure. And note that the whole cellular system is based on the idea that radio only carries the signal the short distance from the customer to the nearest cell site, not radio the whole way. So...you define "radio" as ONLY the way hams do it? Tsk. That shoots down all of broadcasting, all satellite services (including relay of any radio service desiring to rent transponder space), radiosondes, two-way radio used by public safety officials, and the entirety of the U.S. military! Offhand, I'd say your denigration of all radio that is NOT on the ham model is a bit off-center. All that while, during a veritable many-quantum-level-jumps in technology, U.S. amateur radio "qualifications" (test regulations) have required the morsemanship ability test to authorize operation below 30 MHz by amateurs. That is still required. That's a good thing. Because amateur radio has different goals, purposes and resources. Of course...it is to preserve and protect the sanctity of the morse code in radio. [nobody else cares to...] Note that Len never says what he wants something to be, only what it should not be. Except for his never-retracted demand that FCC enact an age requirement of 14 years for any class of ham license. You forgot to add "...and therefore Len should be barred forever from saying anything about anybody under penalty of law!" [do not remove that tag] SSB in theory dates to 1915; in practice on radio to the mid 1920s (LF) and very early 1930s (HF). Practical FM dates to the 1930s (btw, I saw the actual pioneering FM equipment developed, built and used by Major Armstrong). That's COLONEL Armstrong to the "drudges" who never served. :-) Two-way FM radio was pioneered by Link and Motorola with Dan Noble as the star of doing that. Ol' Ed A. was only into broad- casting on FM. By gosh, you've done a one-upmanship on Armstrong's "actual pioneering" stuff. I've only used, operated, maintained SSB on HF 51 years ago...not near as good as someone touring a museum, huh? :-) And of course Reginald A Fessenden was using AM in 1900, and achieved 2 way transatlantic AM voice operation in 1906. Riiiight...and all AM broadcasting adopted the Fessenden system of modulation putting one microphone in series with the antenna lead! Riiiight. WRONG. ERROR. INCORRECT. NOBODY followed that example...for rather obvious technical reasons that anyone who has "credentials" in technology SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. Ptui. Here's a question. Digital is more "up to date" than say SSB. Should digital voice be mandated, and SSB phased out ASAP? Why not? It's what cell phones use.... Tsk. Cellular telephones did NOT begin with digital modulation. ERROR. INCORRECT. WRONG. Besides, why should amateur radio in the U.S. follow ANY other radio service? Isn't U.S. amateur radio all about preserving the glory and majesty of morse code communications below 30 MHz? If somebody wants to try out something new, they can do it as a ham, with very few exceptions (like encryption). Hams are already using digital voice on HF. Riiight. About like old Reggie F. got all broadcasters to do AM with a microphone in the antenna lead. :-) DRM has been test-broadcasting on HF for over three years. The only hold-up is standardization on a A digital system since there is another standard vying for that. Both have been successful. If Len or somebody like him really wanted to do "state of radio art" on ham radio, all they'd need would be a license and maybe an STA. Riiiiight. I should look to the "model" of ham kluges of tube boxes "designed" in the 1990s... But that's not what it's about. What it's "about" in here is a bunch of PCTA extras wanting to beat up NCTAs about the morse code test. :-) Note that Len assumes you are a white male, Mike... Also assumes that about me. Are either or both of you non-white females? Girlie men? :-) No problem, "sweetums," your posting I'm replying to is FULL of assumptions (all invalid) that YOU made. :-) "Do as Len says, not as Len does" Riiiight...exercise freedom and independence, do what everyone wants to do under minimal regulations. The PCTA can take up collections to build an artifact museum for the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. I've nothing against that. :-) Morse code is an old comm method. So what? Len doesn't like it. Therefore, he says it must go away. Not just the test, the code itself. Tsk, tsk, tsk, "sweetums," you've got your ASSumption in a sling again. I'm on record as saying anyone can USE morse code all they want but the TEST should go. ...and I'm NOT against the use of marking pens to do such professional marking on the "front panels" (boxes) of 1990s tube kluges. Do what you want. Heck, I run for fun and fitness. Very old fashioned. Guess that should not be allowed either. Think of Jim Fixx and what happened to him... :-( Say something often enough, and at least you will believe it!! 8^) Exactly I agree with that...because that is why U.S. amateur radio is the last radio service to require a morse code test for a license having below-30-MHz privileges. :-) God bless those olde-tyme hamme morsemen...they've insured that future generations will be held to THEIR mighty macho morse standards! Not conducive to a hobby activity. More conducive to a dictatorship. Like telling people to shut up... "Shut up, just take the damn test!" (from others to me...) Hello? Is your grace irritated at not being revered and respected? :-) |
|
#88
October 4th 04, 02:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#89
October 4th 04, 04:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: It seems to me that the only thing which would please Len would be for us to change to NCTA opinions and respond to Steve the same way he does. In other words, it's OK to behave like Len if and only if you agree with all of his opinions. PCTA extra Double Standard: It's okay to treat NCTAs like dirt, smutz, river bottom slime, etc., because the PCTA think they deserve it. Have I ever "treat[ed] NCTAs like dirt, smutz, river bottom slime, etc."? If so, how? Not on my watch you haven't. Perhaps Len just wants all opposing opinions squelched. No "perhaps," "sweetums" (a Kellie-ism). In other words: "Yes, Len wants all opposing opinions squelched." Several in here have stated publicly, "be quiet and take the damn test!" That's rather close to being told "shut up" to ordinary folk. Who wrote that to you, Len? When did they do it? Did Dave Heil, K8MN, ever write that to you? Len seems to think that if one person tells him to "shut up", it somehow justifies him telling someone else to "shut up". That's faulty logic on Len's part. PCTA extra Double Standard does not recognize such things as nasty. I think it's nasty for anyone to tell another to shut up online. I've never done that. You have, Len. They can say it but no NCTA can. :-) Do you think it's funny? Now - did the US Army not use any morse code after 1952? How about the US Navy? COast Guard? Air Force? Marines? Of course they did. And Jimmie and Mikey were THERE to prove it! [gotta love it] What? Sorry, but I wan't anything at that point in time. Hey! What did I just get draggd into, anyway? I don't ercall posting anything on what the Army and Navy were using in the olde days! Tsk. Jimmie and Mikey ought to look beyond the ARRL phrases and ask the military what is actually used. One on-line source is the USAF's free download "From Flares to Satellites," available at the USAF Communications Command website. An informative small book. Thanks for the info. I'll check it out. I've mentioned that before in here. Matters not to Jimmie and Mikey because they WERE THERE and KNOW? Riiiight...in their dreams they were... I really don't understand why Lenover21 thinks I think I was there. I've pointed out all sorts of references and sources of information for quite a while in here on the REST of the radio world and what is used there...but "that does not apply." The PCTA still think that morsemanship is a required skill in the U.S. military and that radiotelegraphers are "still needed!" Where have I ever written that, Len? I haven't written that, and I don't think I even think that.... if I *were* to even think about it. I think. Has someone in here been posting things under my name? Was there Morse Code in use by the US military after 1952 or not? Now that I do know. Yes it was. A colleague worked with it during the early 70's. But! What does all this military stuff have to do with Ham radio. We are not military. Perhaps Len wants *all* amateur radio tests eliminated. I am beginning to suspect that may be the case.. Me too. Make amateur radio just like cb. No legal homebrewing, no tests, no Morse code at all. Tsk. ERROR. WRONG. INCORRECT. "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it." I've advocated TOUGHER written tests for U.S. amateur radio, never total elimination of the written test. That's in Google. Where? I don't ever recall reading that from you at all. Was it in any of your many comments to FCC? I haven't mentioned that in the last few years because there's too much ignorance of both theory and regulations on the part of those self-righteous PCTA. I don't think so. You've never spared the verbiage here. Do you think Len ever bought a new teleprinter for hobby use with his own money? snort! but that's what he suggests we hams do! I've never suggested that. Yes, you have. Note that Len never says what he wants something to be, only what it should not be. Except for his never-retracted demand that FCC enact an age requirement of 14 years for any class of ham license. You forgot to add "...and therefore Len should be barred forever from saying anything about anybody under penalty of law!" [do not remove that tag] No, I didn't forget to add anything, Len. I don't want to silence anyone, nor deny anyone's free speech rights. I don't mind Lenover21's posting here at all. Sometimes maybe people can mistake disagreement with suppression. I've never told anyone online to shut up. You have. "Do as Len says, not as Len does" Not conducive to a hobby activity. More conducive to a dictatorship. Like telling people to shut up... "Shut up, just take the damn test!" (from others to me...) Who wrote that to you, Len? When did they do it? I never saw that! I do recall a post where someone said something about Lenover21 taking a test, but don't recall any of what is in qoutes. Did Dave Heil, K8MN, ever write that to you? Len seems to think that if one person tells him to "shut up", it somehow justifies him telling someone else to "shut up". My folks taught me better. That's faulty logic on Len's part. I say, "Speak up Lenover21!" Don't allow people to squelch you! - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#90
October 4th 04, 11:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: It seems to me that the only thing which would please Len would be for us to change to NCTA opinions and respond to Steve the same way he does. In other words, it's OK to behave like Len if and only if you agree with all of his opinions. PCTA extra Double Standard: It's okay to treat NCTAs like dirt, smutz, river bottom slime, etc., because the PCTA think they deserve it. Have I ever "treat[ed] NCTAs like dirt, smutz, river bottom slime, etc."? If so, how? Not on my watch you haven't. Thanks, Mike. Perhaps Len just wants all opposing opinions squelched. No "perhaps," "sweetums" (a Kellie-ism). In other words: "Yes, Len wants all opposing opinions squelched." Several in here have stated publicly, "be quiet and take the damn test!" That's rather close to being told "shut up" to ordinary folk. Who wrote that to you, Len? When did they do it? Did Dave Heil, K8MN, ever write that to you? Len seems to think that if one person tells him to "shut up", it somehow justifies him telling someone else to "shut up". That's faulty logic on Len's part. PCTA extra Double Standard does not recognize such things as nasty. I think it's nasty for anyone to tell another to shut up online. I've never done that. You have, Len. They can say it but no NCTA can. :-) Do you think it's funny? Now - did the US Army not use any morse code after 1952? How about the US Navy? COast Guard? Air Force? Marines? Of course they did. And Jimmie and Mikey were THERE to prove it! [gotta love it] What? Sorry, but I wan't anything at that point in time. How about in 1972, Mike? Hey! What did I just get draggd into, anyway? I don't ercall posting anything on what the Army and Navy were using in the olde days! See "the short version" below: Tsk. Jimmie and Mikey ought to look beyond the ARRL phrases and ask the military what is actually used. One on-line source is the USAF's free download "From Flares to Satellites," available at the USAF Communications Command website. An informative small book. Thanks for the info. I'll check it out. I've mentioned that before in here. Matters not to Jimmie and Mikey because they WERE THERE and KNOW? Riiiight...in their dreams they were... I really don't understand why Lenover21 thinks I think I was there. I've pointed out all sorts of references and sources of information for quite a while in here on the REST of the radio world and what is used there...but "that does not apply." The PCTA still think that morsemanship is a required skill in the U.S. military and that radiotelegraphers are "still needed!" Where have I ever written that, Len? I haven't written that, and I don't think I even think that.... if I *were* to even think about it. I think. Has someone in here been posting things under my name? Not to my knowledge, Mike. Was there Morse Code in use by the US military after 1952 or not? Now that I do know. Yes it was. A colleague worked with it during the early 70's. But! What does all this military stuff have to do with Ham radio. We are not military. Here's "the short version", Mike: There *was* a time when the US military (all branches) used Morse Code for radio communications - extensively. Of course after about 1920 or so they used other modes too, but Morse Code on military radio played a central role in WW2 and for many years afterward. Of course Morse Code for military communications suffers from some basic problems: It's slower than some modes, particularly RTTY, and it requires the use of skilled operators at both ends of a circuit (RTTY requires only that the transmitting op know how to type). Once upon a time, the need for trained Morse Code radio operators was given as a valid reason for ham radio having a Morse Code test, because hams would then form a source of self-trained candidates for the military. In both World Wars, there arose times when the US military needed to rapidly expand their number of Morse Code radio operators, and many of them came from the ranks of hams of the time. Of course the US military has pretty much completely phased out the use of Morse Code for radio communications. Probably the last extensive use ended with 1997, when the Coast Guard ended its maritime Morse Code operations. There may be some very specialized uses for Morse Code in the US military left today, but that's all. Heck, the Navy doesn't even have a "Radioman" title/MOS/job description anymore. So that old reason for a Morse Code test has lost its validity over time. Where Len fits into all this is that he was at ADA in Japan in the early 1950s. He worked on their radio transmitters there. Their main radio task was long distance communications back to the Pentagon and other locations around the Pacific. ADA didn't use Morse Code; all the messages went by RTTY on fixed, predetermined frequencies determined mostly by propagation. Len apparently thinks that because ADA transmitter technicians didn't need to know Morse Code to do their jobs in 1952, amateur radio operators shouldn't have to know Morse Code to get amateur radio licenses in 2004. In fact, Len apparently thinks that because ADA transmitter technicians didn't need to know Morse Code to do their jobs in 1952, amateur radio operators shouldn't have had to know Morse Code to get amateur radio licenses for many years before 2004. Of course, as you say, "we're not military", so that logic is faulty. But it's what Len is yelling about here. Some time back, I posted a short description (written by others) of operations at radio station WAR early in 1942. Included a description of the use of Morse Code their. Len went ballistic on that one. Further back, I posted a description of one of the code test used at US Navy Radioman "A" school in 1958 (24 wpm, 5 letter code groups, copy on a typewriter. Maximum allowable errors: 3 in a one-hour session). I don't recall a favorable reaction from Len... Even earlier, another amateur and professional radio operator (Jeff Herman) posted a fascinating description of what it wa like to operate Coast Guard radio at NMO in Hawaii. Included lots of Morse Code - well into the 1990s. Len's reaction was the now-famous "sphincter post".... Perhaps Len wants *all* amateur radio tests eliminated. I am beginning to suspect that may be the case.. Me too. Make amateur radio just like cb. No legal homebrewing, no tests, no Morse code at all. Tsk. ERROR. WRONG. INCORRECT. "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it." I've advocated TOUGHER written tests for U.S. amateur radio, never total elimination of the written test. That's in Google. Where? I don't ever recall reading that from you at all. Was it in any of your many comments to FCC? I haven't mentioned that in the last few years because there's too much ignorance of both theory and regulations on the part of those self-righteous PCTA. I don't think so. You've never spared the verbiage here. Note that Len never says what he wants something to be, only what it should not be. Except for his never-retracted demand that FCC enact an age requirement of 14 years for any class of ham license. You forgot to add "...and therefore Len should be barred forever from saying anything about anybody under penalty of law!" [do not remove that tag] No, I didn't forget to add anything, Len. I don't want to silence anyone, nor deny anyone's free speech rights. I don't mind Lenover21's posting here at all. Some do. But 'minding' someone's posting doesn't mean anyone wants it suppressed. Sometimes maybe people can mistake disagreement with suppression. That's what Len seems to think. He seems to think that disagreeing with him is the same as telling him to shut up. Worse, he *really* gets ticked when someone points out an error in his information or logic. Like the whole flap about Fessenden using voice radio in 1900... I've never told anyone online to shut up. You have. "Do as Len says, not as Len does" Not conducive to a hobby activity. More conducive to a dictatorship. Like telling people to shut up... "Shut up, just take the damn test!" (from others to me...) Who wrote that to you, Len? When did they do it? I never saw that! I do recall a post where someone said something about Lenover21 taking a test, but don't recall any of what is in qoutes. Back on January 19, 2000, Len (as Lenof21) wrote that he was "going for Extra right out of the box". He didn't. Almost five years now and he's not even tried the Tech written. Of course an amateur radio license isn't a prerequisite to posting here. However, it *does* help with someone's credibility among radio amateurs. Did Dave Heil, K8MN, ever write that to you? I cannot recall K8MN ever telling anyone to shut up. In fact, the exact phrase Len used was: LHA: "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" USMC does not refer to the Marine Corps. "Feldwebel" is German for corporal, the rank held by a certain mid-20th-century dictator when he was in the German army in WW1. I don't recall Len using any smileys with that, either. Len seems to think that if one person tells him to "shut up", it somehow justifies him telling someone else to "shut up". My folks taught me better. He missed that lesson. That's faulty logic on Len's part. I say, "Speak up Lenover21!" Don't allow people to squelch you! Len doesn't need any encouragement to speak up ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Money just for posting | Digital | |||
| Money just for posting | Digital | |||
| Who peed in the pool? | Policy | |||
| Guidelines for posting to this newsgroup? | Boatanchors | |||
| rsgb now posting their fantastic $2 membership offer | Antenna | |||
Linear Mode
