amateur radio hypocrites
 

K1MAN does it he's a jammer and a lid.

W1AW does it it's a service to the amateur radio community.

Hams are hypocrites, just little whiners who got their asses kick at school
everyday now they think they're something.

The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think they
own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to use them.

Neither is true!

Randy
KD4OWL

"Psychiatrist to Hams" wrote in message
...

"HammComm" wrote in message
. com...
K1MAN does it he's a jammer and a lid.

W1AW does it it's a service to the amateur radio community.

Hams are hypocrites, just little whiners who got their asses kick at
school everyday now they think they're something.



Hams like to whine & cry.
To wit:

-A.M. guys whined & cried about how sideband was the ruin of ham radio.
-Incentive licensing ruined ham radio.
-No code licenses will ruin ham radio.
-ARRL is ruining ham radio.
-KV4FZ will ruin ham radio.
-K1MAN will ruin ham radio.
-(this space reserved for future whining & crying.)






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004

"Randy A. Hefner" wrote in
:

The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think
they own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to
use them.

Neither is true!

Randy
KD4OWL

"Psychiatrist to Hams" wrote in message
...

"HammComm" wrote in message
. com...
K1MAN does it he's a jammer and a lid.

W1AW does it it's a service to the amateur radio community.

Hams are hypocrites, just little whiners who got their asses kick at
school everyday now they think they're something.



Hams like to whine & cry.
To wit:

-A.M. guys whined & cried about how sideband was the ruin of ham
radio. -Incentive licensing ruined ham radio.
-No code licenses will ruin ham radio.
-ARRL is ruining ham radio.
-KV4FZ will ruin ham radio.
-K1MAN will ruin ham radio.
-(this space reserved for future whining & crying.)






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004




This whole thread so far seems like a troll, but if it is it's not really
working, because you're right.

There is a large contingent of hams who don't want anything to change,
ever. For a technology based hobby that's a seriously weird POV, as the
whole basis of technology is change itself. Change is as inevitable as
death and taxes.

FWIW, I have no problem with K1MAN, as I don't see much difference between
his bulletins and those of W1AW. The only differences are of the same order
as those between, say, ABC and CBS. The remedy is also the same, i.e. if
you don't like one or the other, change the channel/frequency.

The international requirement for a code test had a beginning and an end.
It began in 1927, and ended in 2003. It wasn't there at the beginning of
the hobby, and it's not there now. It's a pity that the FCC will take so
long to do anything about it, but they will. Hopefully then this issue will
go the same way as spark and AM.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: Alun
Date: 12/3/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Randy A. Hefner" wrote in
:

The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think
they own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to
use them.

Neither is true!

Randy
KD4OWL

"Psychiatrist to Hams" wrote in message
...

"HammComm" wrote in message
. com...
K1MAN does it he's a jammer and a lid.

W1AW does it it's a service to the amateur radio community.

Hams are hypocrites, just little whiners who got their asses kick at
school everyday now they think they're something.



Hams like to whine & cry.
To wit:

-A.M. guys whined & cried about how sideband was the ruin of ham
radio. -Incentive licensing ruined ham radio.
-No code licenses will ruin ham radio.
-ARRL is ruining ham radio.
-KV4FZ will ruin ham radio.
-K1MAN will ruin ham radio.
-(this space reserved for future whining & crying.)






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004




This whole thread so far seems like a troll, but if it is it's not really
working, because you're right.

He's only half right...and then only by accident.

There is a large contingent of hams who don't want anything to change,
ever. For a technology based hobby that's a seriously weird POV, as the
whole basis of technology is change itself. Change is as inevitable as
death and taxes.

"Large contingent", Alun?

Where are they?

Where is their voice?

I've been a US Amateur since 1972 and while there's always someone who
likes things "just the way they are", that's true in EVERY aspect of life.

Why does anyone think that Radio Amateurs should be any different?

FWIW, I have no problem with K1MAN, as I don't see much difference between
his bulletins and those of W1AW. The only differences are of the same order
as those between, say, ABC and CBS. The remedy is also the same, i.e. if
you don't like one or the other, change the channel/frequency.

The problem between W1AM and Baxter is that W1AM actually represents
someone. And Baxter only represents Baxter. While the ARRL editorializes in
QST, it does NOT editorialize on the air. Therein lies the biggest difference.

Also, Baxter is a felonious lawbreaker. He's a criminal and a punk. No
more...No less.

The international requirement for a code test had a beginning and an end.
It began in 1927, and ended in 2003. It wasn't there at the beginning of
the hobby, and it's not there now. It's a pity that the FCC will take so
long to do anything about it, but they will. Hopefully then this issue will
go the same way as spark and AM.

While the legal "requirement" for Morse Code proficiency has gone away,
there still exists a valid reason to keep Morse Code as a basic communication
skill around. The day of the "universal translator" ala-Star Trek has yet to
arrive, and Morse Code can still help bridge that gap.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...

While the legal "requirement" for Morse Code proficiency has gone
away,
there still exists a valid reason to keep Morse Code as a basic
communication
skill around. The day of the "universal translator" ala-Star Trek has yet
to
arrive, and Morse Code can still help bridge that gap.

Some amateurs may not realize what Steve is talking about... With morse
code, you can get through a basic QSO with amateurs who speak a digfferent
language better than one might normally expect!

Quoting EI7IS's blog---: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_ei7is.php

--------------------------------------
One argument that was not very well plugged by the "Keep the CW Requirement"
lobby and is still a good reason for learning The Code (compulsory or not)
is the fact that Morse is the "Lingua Franca of Radio". Apparently in use
since the Middle Ages, Lingua Franca was a trade language used by various
language communities around the Mediterranean, to communicate with others
whose language they did not speak. It was a simple language which allowed
traders of different cultures/languages to communicate their prices and
quantities to each other and served it's purpose up until the 19th century.

What many don't realise about CW is that it is fairly much "language
independent" and an English speaking radio amateur can communicate with a
Japanese operator without ever being aware of any language barriers! This is
because CW uses prosigns and abbreviations (such as the Q-Code) which mean
the same thing world wide regardless of language. Now, what other mode
allows you to do that? (Ok, SSTV gives it a good stab, but apart from that
CW is pretty unique).
--------------------------------------

Charles, N5PVL

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

The day of the "universal translator" ala-Star Trek has yet to
arrive, and Morse Code can still help bridge that gap.

Steve,

I'm a great fan of the use of Morse code (small c), but the above statement is
pure bull****. Morse is just a way of encoding alpha-numeric characters, not a
bridge between languages.

Before you trot out the old rant about Q-signals and abbreviations, I'll remind
you that those Q-signals and abbreviations have the same meaning whether spoken,
sent as ASCII or Baudot signals, or waved over semaphore flags.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K4YZ.....Steve you're a stone asshole!
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Randy A. Hefner"
Date: 12/3/2004 8:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think
they
own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to use them.

Neither is true!

Randy
KD4OWL

The "facts" are that only a very few idiots believe that. However an
even
bigger percentage of persons keep trying to perpetuate the idea.

And while no Amateur "owns" a frequency, we DO have the right to use
those
frequencies assigned to us.

So sayeth the FCC.

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


Again with the profanities, Hans?


Bull****.

Unless you engage in religious worship males bovines, the word isn't profane.
If you are in fact a follower of Brahminism, I apologize, otherwise just deal
with it.

And your assertion that Morse code (small c) is some sort of lingua franca is
still bull****.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , "Charles
Brabham" writes:


While the legal "requirement" for Morse Code proficiency has gone away,
there still exists a valid reason to keep Morse Code as a basic
communication
skill around. The day of the "universal translator" ala-Star Trek has yet
to
arrive, and Morse Code can still help bridge that gap.

Some amateurs may not realize what Steve is talking about... With morse
code, you can get through a basic QSO with amateurs who speak a digfferent
language better than one might normally expect!

In reality, the "legal" requirement for morsemanship to use all amateur
privileges below 30 MHz has NOT "gone away."

Also, there is NO requirement or even suggestion that U.S. radio
amateurs MUST "speak" to those whose primary language is not
English.

The ONLY reason for adopting a "simple" (technologically speaking)
method of using radio waves to communicate was that turning a
radio transmitter on or off was about the ONLY way the primitive,
early radio could be used.

[Miccolis is even now preparing a scathing rebuke talking about his
old buddy, Reggie Fessenden, doing AM with a carbon mike in the
antenna lead way back in 1900 (supposedly) and for sure in 1906
(many witnesses)...not exactly a wide-spread adoption of an AM
method then, now or in-between]

One argument that was not very well plugged by the "Keep the CW Requirement"
lobby and is still a good reason for learning The Code (compulsory or not)
is the fact that Morse is the "Lingua Franca of Radio". Apparently in use
since the Middle Ages, Lingua Franca was a trade language used by various
language communities around the Mediterranean, to communicate with others
whose language they did not speak. It was a simple language which allowed
traders of different cultures/languages to communicate their prices and
quantities to each other and served it's purpose up until the 19th century.

Tsk. Most of that is intellectual-academic bull**** in actual practice,
according to much more detailed history from about 500 AD an onward
(give or take a millennium).

First of all, amateur radio under U.S. regulations is NOT for trade
purposes, commerce, or anything involving money (that's why it is called
AMATEUR radio, done for non-pecuniary reasons, or, more simply, as
a HOBBY).

What was actually USED as a so-called "common language for money
exchange" (lingua franca or language for franking) was a highly-variable
polyglot depending on the region. There was NO one language, but many,
since there was relatively little in the way of lexicons or other aids for
study. Those in "international" commerce and trade had to learn as
much and as many different necessary languages and dialects as they
were able to do. For business purposes, the needs of language were
relatively simple since business transactions were largely without all of
the modern regulations, taxation, tariffs, etc.

What many don't realise about CW is that it is fairly much "language
independent" and an English speaking radio amateur can communicate with a
Japanese operator without ever being aware of any language barriers!

As written by someone whose native language is English, that's an
extremely biased statement.

First, there's NO "need" for any U.S. amateur to communicate with
Japanese amateurs, nor any other amateurs whose languages are not
English...not any more than a Japanese amateur being required to
communicate with a Chinese, Korean, or Russian amateur. [a large
population fraction of the world, none of whom have English as the
native language...and morse code is based on the English alphabet]

"Q Codes" and other jargonspeak prosigns were developed NOT as any
"lingua franca" but because manual morse was SLOW compared to
speech. That was a convenience, not a necessity. A "QSY" can be
as easy to understand in any form of communication from morse to
TTY to speech to the printed word. It is JARGON, not some magic
phrase. If commonly used by many, then it becomes understandable
throughout the radio communications world. [amateurs didn't start that
sort of jargon, but many erroneously think they did]

This is
because CW uses prosigns and abbreviations (such as the Q-Code) which mean
the same thing world wide regardless of language. Now, what other mode
allows you to do that? (Ok, SSTV gives it a good stab, but apart from that
CW is pretty unique).

No cigar. Invalid reasoning. All those "prosigns" and Q Codes do is
fit standard phrasing into a shorter time frame, no more and no less than
the JARGON of any common activity.

Among the members of the electrical unions at work in the film and TV
industry, "Kill the broad!" means to turn off the broad (wide-beam) lighting
on a set. "Go to black" in TV production means to shut down video-audio
as in after a "Crawl" is done (the roll-through of credits for the
production).
All those terms are perfectly understandable - within their lines of work -
and came to be standardized with wide use as in all human jargon. It
isn't "unique" or magic or any other self-congratulatory wonderfulness.

What all of the PCTA bafflegab boils down to is that the morsemen managed
to learn a particular skill of early radio (a necessary skill in old,
primitive
radio), are highly proud of their accomplishment, and insist that others do
the same extraordinary thing they did...to prove these newcomers are "as
good in radio" as they.

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Psychiatrist to Hams"
Date: 12/3/2004 1:20 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...

While the legal "requirement" for Morse Code proficiency has gone
away,
there still exists a valid reason to keep Morse Code as a basic
communication
skill around. The day of the "universal translator" ala-Star Trek has yet
to
arrive, and Morse Code can still help bridge that gap.

And all the above is your own stupid OPINION and has no basis
in fact whatsoever! And stop deleting groups you ####-for-brains.

My opinion, and one bore out by 9 decades of proof.

And as for deleting YOUR crap, well, that's just a perk of the "DELETE"
button, you anonymous coward.

Too bad you're not as big a man as your mouth is.

Steve, K4YZ

Randy A. Hefner wrote:
The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think they
own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to use them.

Neither is true!


In one sense we hams all "own the ham band frequencies", ie,
the FCC allocated them for us to use. But no one ham has
exclusive right to any one frequency. You first check that
the frequency is clear, then use it, then when you're done
give it up for others to use.

Also, Baxter is a felonious lawbreaker. He's a criminal and a punk. No
more...No less.



Aside from violating a few FCC part 97 rules, what did
he do?

"Charles Brabham" wrote

This is because CW uses prosigns and abbreviations (such as the Q-Code) which
mean the same thing world
wide regardless of language. Now, what other mode allows you to do that?

Pretty much any mode. The "Q-code" is the same in CW, spoken, ASCII, Baudot, or
even waved with semaphore flags.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Randy A. Hefner" wrote in
:

The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think
they own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to
use them.

Neither is true!

Randy
KD4OWL

"Psychiatrist to Hams" wrote in message
...

"HammComm" wrote in message
. com...
K1MAN does it he's a jammer and a lid.

W1AW does it it's a service to the amateur radio community.

Hams are hypocrites, just little whiners who got their asses kick at
school everyday now they think they're something.



Hams like to whine & cry.
To wit:

-A.M. guys whined & cried about how sideband was the ruin of ham
radio. -Incentive licensing ruined ham radio.
-No code licenses will ruin ham radio.
-ARRL is ruining ham radio.
-KV4FZ will ruin ham radio.
-K1MAN will ruin ham radio.
-(this space reserved for future whining & crying.)






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004




This whole thread so far seems like a troll, but if it is it's not really
working, because you're right.

There is a large contingent of hams who don't want anything to change,
ever. For a technology based hobby that's a seriously weird POV, as the
whole basis of technology is change itself. Change is as inevitable as
death and taxes.

FWIW, I have no problem with K1MAN, as I don't see much difference between
his bulletins and those of W1AW. The only differences are of the same
order
as those between, say, ABC and CBS. The remedy is also the same, i.e. if
you don't like one or the other, change the channel/frequency.

The international requirement for a code test had a beginning and an end.
It began in 1927, and ended in 2003. It wasn't there at the beginning of
the hobby, and it's not there now. It's a pity that the FCC will take so
long to do anything about it, but they will. Hopefully then this issue
will
go the same way as spark and AM.

73 de Alun, N3KIP



The issue can't go the same as spark and AM as these two activities went
different directions. Spark is simply not allowed due to the fact that it
chews up so much spectrum. On the other hand AM is still allowed and has
developed into a niche subhobby of ham radio. While the code test may go
away, I doubt if code will be forbidden. And due to its usefulness, it's
unlikely to descend to the small niche that AM has.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


Again with the profanities, Hans?


Bull****.

Unless you engage in religious worship males bovines, the word isn't
profane.

Sure is is.

No it is merely a vulgarity not a profanity. Unfortunately people confuse
the difference between the two. They are only approximately synonymous not
exactly synonymous.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 12/3/2004 5:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


Again with the profanities, Hans?


Bull****.

Unless you engage in religious worship males bovines, the word isn't
profane.

Sure is is.

No it is merely a vulgarity not a profanity. Unfortunately people confuse
the difference between the two. They are only approximately synonymous not
exactly synonymous.

I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise, and so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be impressed
as they write out the citation.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise, and so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be
impressed
as they write out the citation.


First, this newsgroup isn't Amateur Radio and FCC doesn't give a rats ass what
we write here.

Second, even though "profane" or even "vulgar" language is in bad taste on
Amateur Radio, it is not illegal so no citation has been (nor would be) issued
for "profane" or "vulgar".

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the famous "7 words"
list.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB
---
The good old days ain't what they used to be, but then again, they never were.

"robert casey" wrote in message
k.net...
Randy A. Hefner wrote:
The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think
they
own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to use
them.

Neither is true!


In one sense we hams all "own the ham band frequencies", ie,
the FCC allocated them for us to use. But no one ham has
exclusive right to any one frequency. You first check that
the frequency is clear, then use it, then when you're done
give it up for others to use.

We did encounter one looney a few years ago who said a certain repeater
output was his frequency. It had been given to him by somebody he named (a
name that none of us had ever heard). He stepped on our QSOs, using his
own, real callsign, for a few hours and then no more. Padded cell time,
maybe.

"Sal"

Hans has a point, there. - But like most folks, I don't skate around the
edges of the law while on the air; preferring to have a bit of cushion
there. A little extra civility while on the air is a very good policy in my
opinion, law or no law.

Charles, N5PVL



"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the
FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise,
and so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all
listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be
impressed
as they write out the citation.


First, this newsgroup isn't Amateur Radio and FCC doesn't give a rats ass
what we write here.

Second, even though "profane" or even "vulgar" language is in bad taste on
Amateur Radio, it is not illegal so no citation has been (nor would be)
issued for "profane" or "vulgar".

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the famous "7
words" list.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB
---
The good old days ain't what they used to be, but then again, they never
were.

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 6:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: t



"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the
FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise, and
so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all
listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be
impressed
as they write out the citation.


First, this newsgroup isn't Amateur Radio and FCC doesn't give a rats ass
what
we write here.

I guess you're just too busy looking for an opportunity to be the bully to
ead what was wrote.

Go back and re-read what was written, Hans. The stop being an idiot...IF
you can.

Second, even though "profane" or even "vulgar" language is in bad taste on
Amateur Radio, it is not illegal so no citation has been (nor would be)
issued
for "profane" or "vulgar".

Sure it does.

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the famous "7
words"
list.

Doesn't matter what list it may or may not be on, Hans. Lesser
profanites have earned the FCC's ire. Mere description of the sex act, sans
graphic language has earned citations.

Sunuvagun!

Sunuvagun yourself, Hans. Now...Get out of the bully mode, try and
understand that not everyone is overly impressed with your underwhelming
knowledge.

Cussing louder and more frequently does NOT make you more easily
understood...It just makes you look like a foul mouthed old man who's
frustrated with his waning ability to hold a person's attention just by being
overbearing and abusive.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Charles Brabham"
Date: 12/3/2004 6:44 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Hans has a point, there. - But like most folks, I don't skate around the
edges of the law while on the air; preferring to have a bit of cushion
there. A little extra civility while on the air is a very good policy in my
opinion, law or no law.

And it's ON the air that I cited...But Hans, ever the bully and "King
of the Hill", was just anxious to find a reason to justify his childish and
ever-depreciating tone that he skipped over that part. Guess he thought no one
would notice. Sucks to be him.

Darned shame he logged all that (alleged) education, only to let it go to
waste when it would do him the most good.

I hope I age more gracefully than he has. That much anxiety and
frustration only adds to your medical problems as you age.

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the
FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise,
and so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all
listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be
impressed
as they write out the citation.

First, this newsgroup isn't Amateur Radio and FCC doesn't give a rats ass
what we write here.

Second, even though "profane" or even "vulgar" language is in bad taste on
Amateur Radio, it is not illegal so no citation has been (nor would be)
issued for "profane" or "vulgar".

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the famous "7
words" list.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB

The good old days ain't what they used to be, but then again, they never
were.

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

ability to hold a person's attention just by being
overbearing and abusive.

Hey, "overbearing and abusive" I learned from you! I bow to the Master!

Gotta love that "paternal parent fornicating scumbag" vulgarity-line of yours
too. Nice! The "hypocrite" thing in the thread title sure fits you well, and
you seem so prideful of it. Good job.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 7:37 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

ability to hold a person's attention just by being
overbearing and abusive.

Hey, "overbearing and abusive" I learned from you! I bow to the Master!

Gotta love that "paternal parent fornicating scumbag" vulgarity-line of yours
too.

But...but...but...HANS!

None of THOSE words were on the "seven words" list either!

Now, are you NOW saying that that list is NOT the definitive list of words
you can't say...?!?! Or are you once again just exerting your bullyness

Nice! The "hypocrite" thing in the thread title sure fits you well,
and
you seem so prideful of it. Good job.

Oh NO, Hans, I bow to YOU! You, Lennie, and a short list of others who deem
it necessary to deviate from civility and protocol in order to exert your will.

You just seem to get very defensive and quick to claim victim status when
it get's fed back to you.

And as for alledging OTHERS to be "hypocrites, Hans...Who signs his posts
with "73" after berating and demeaning the respondent...?!?!

Sheeeeeeesh.....

Do you shave BOTH of those faces, Hans, or just the one you're using at
the moment?

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

Gotta love that "paternal parent fornicating scumbag" vulgarity-line of yours
too.

But...but...but...HANS!

None of THOSE words were on the "seven words" list either!


Of course they're not. I just googled them up out your old posts to show how
your pompous indignant hand-wringing about bad language rings as hollow as your
empty morals.

That, and to watch you jump like a puppet when we pull your strings.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

The issue can't go the same as spark and AM as these two activities went
different directions. Spark is simply not allowed due to the fact that it
chews up so much spectrum.

There's also the fact that hams simply stopped using spark in the early 1920s.
"CW" (meaning "tube") rigs were so much more effective that by the time spark
was outlawed for hams (1927), there were few if any hams still using it.

Kind of like asking if anybody is using a 286-based computer to surf the 'net
today.

Oddly enough, spark was not completely banned from all other radio services
until 1966.

If you think our society today is undergoing rapid techological change, look at
the development of radio (both amateur and nonamateur) from 1919 to 1929.

On the other hand AM is still allowed and has
developed into a niche subhobby of ham radio.

Yep. In fact, it seems to me that AM has undergone a revival in the past 15-20
years.

When I first got started in ham radio in the late 1960s, there were few hams
using AM on HF compared to SSB. AM rigs that had been prized a decade or so
earlier could be had for a song, and the number of hams on AM was dropping
fast. When repeaters became popular in the 1970s, amateur VHF/UHF AM followed
fast.

But somewhere in the late 1980s-early 1990s the trend turned. Old AM rigs were
fixed up and put back on the air. Newer hams, who had never been on AM before,
began to show up on 3885 and other spots. Of course it's just IMHO, but it
seems to me there is more AM activity on amateur HF today than 30-35 years ago
- and it's growing.

While the code test may go
away, I doubt if code will be forbidden. And due to its usefulness, it's
unlikely to descend to the small niche that AM has.

I hope you're right, Dee.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Randy A. Hefner" wrote in
:

The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they
think they own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a
"right" to use them.

Neither is true!

Randy
KD4OWL

"Psychiatrist to Hams" wrote in message
...

"HammComm" wrote in message
. com...
K1MAN does it he's a jammer and a lid.

W1AW does it it's a service to the amateur radio community.

Hams are hypocrites, just little whiners who got their asses kick
at school everyday now they think they're something.



Hams like to whine & cry.
To wit:

-A.M. guys whined & cried about how sideband was the ruin of ham
radio. -Incentive licensing ruined ham radio.
-No code licenses will ruin ham radio.
-ARRL is ruining ham radio.
-KV4FZ will ruin ham radio.
-K1MAN will ruin ham radio.
-(this space reserved for future whining & crying.)






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004




This whole thread so far seems like a troll, but if it is it's not
really working, because you're right.

There is a large contingent of hams who don't want anything to change,
ever. For a technology based hobby that's a seriously weird POV, as
the whole basis of technology is change itself. Change is as
inevitable as death and taxes.

FWIW, I have no problem with K1MAN, as I don't see much difference
between his bulletins and those of W1AW. The only differences are of
the same order as those between, say, ABC and CBS. The remedy is also
the same, i.e. if you don't like one or the other, change the
channel/frequency.

The international requirement for a code test had a beginning and an
end. It began in 1927, and ended in 2003. It wasn't there at the
beginning of the hobby, and it's not there now. It's a pity that the
FCC will take so long to do anything about it, but they will.
Hopefully then this issue will go the same way as spark and AM.

73 de Alun, N3KIP



The issue can't go the same as spark and AM as these two activities
went different directions. Spark is simply not allowed due to the fact
that it chews up so much spectrum. On the other hand AM is still
allowed and has developed into a niche subhobby of ham radio. While
the code test may go away, I doubt if code will be forbidden. And due
to its usefulness, it's unlikely to descend to the small niche that AM
has.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I could see it one day becoming as much of a niche as AM. There are many
other telegraphy modes in use.

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Charles Brabham"
Date: 12/3/2004 6:44 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Hans has a point, there. - But like most folks, I don't skate around the
edges of the law while on the air; preferring to have a bit of cushion
there. A little extra civility while on the air is a very good policy in
my
opinion, law or no law.

And it's ON the air that I cited...But Hans, ever the bully and

Sorry, I wasn't paying any attention to your arguement. I was just
responding to Hans' post.

Charles, N5PVL

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 8:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:



"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

Gotta love that "paternal parent fornicating scumbag" vulgarity-line of
yours
too.

But...but...but...HANS!

None of THOSE words were on the "seven words" list either!


Of course they're not. I just googled them up out your old posts to show how

your pompous indignant hand-wringing about bad language rings as hollow as
your
empty morals.

"Empty morals" coming from a guy who can't seem to decide which face to
show today is a bit laughable, Hans.

That, and to watch you jump like a puppet when we pull your strings.

Then you admit that my reactions are due to your input. Thanks.

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 12/3/2004 5:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


Again with the profanities, Hans?


Bull****.

Unless you engage in religious worship males bovines, the word isn't
profane.

Sure is is.

No it is merely a vulgarity not a profanity. Unfortunately people
confuse
the difference between the two. They are only approximately synonymous
not
exactly synonymous.

I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the
FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise,
and so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all
listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be
impressed
as they write out the citation.

73

Steve, K4YZ

I would not use it over the air as vulgarity is also not allowed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 12/4/2004 7:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 12/3/2004 5:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/3/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


Again with the profanities, Hans?


Bull****.

Unless you engage in religious worship males bovines, the word isn't
profane.

Sure is is.

No it is merely a vulgarity not a profanity. Unfortunately people
confuse
the difference between the two. They are only approximately synonymous
not
exactly synonymous.

I dare you to say it over your Amateur Radio station knowing that the
FCC
is monitoring, Dee. I consider it profane, approximately or otherwise,
and so
does Uncle.

Please use your assigned callsign, and make sure you remind all
listeners
that it's "merely" vulgar, and not "profane". I am sure they will be
impressed
as they write out the citation.

73

Steve, K4YZ

I would not use it over the air as vulgarity is also not allowed.

Point. Game. Set.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Ham radio operators own the amateur radio assigned frequencies no more than
any other person...ham or not!

The frequencies are owned by the public. The FCC has been charged with
"managing" those frequencies by congress. These frequencies can be
re-assigned to other services.

"robert casey" wrote in message
k.net...
Randy A. Hefner wrote:
The problem with many (not all) ham radio operators is that they think
they
own the frequencies assigned to them and they have a "right" to use
them.

Neither is true!


In one sense we hams all "own the ham band frequencies", ie,
the FCC allocated them for us to use. But no one ham has
exclusive right to any one frequency. You first check that
the frequency is clear, then use it, then when you're done
give it up for others to use.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

Gotta love that "paternal parent fornicating scumbag" vulgarity-line of
yours
too.

But...but...but...HANS!

None of THOSE words were on the "seven words" list either!

Of course they're not. I just googled them up out your old posts to show how
your pompous indignant hand-wringing about bad language rings as hollow as
your empty morals.

Let us not forget that lovable Yiddish pejorative, PUTZ, used by his
nobleness, in hundreds of sign-offs.

PUTZ is common Yiddish and is used (when not meaning "to polish")
as a euphemism for "penis head" as in those who think only with
their brains in the male genital organ.

In another thread, someone with the pseudonym "TrueAmerican" used
another common Yiddish word "schlepp" (to drag through many things
or slog a long distance). ["schlepp" is not a pejorative but its origins
are very UN-American, heh heh]

Apparently, any euphemism in a language not commonly used by
a group is "okay" or "correct."

Hypocrisy is alive and well and living, among other places, TN. :-)

That, and to watch you jump like a puppet when we pull your strings.

...works every time! :-)

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the famous "7
words"
list.

It does, however, contain a word that is.

John Kasupski, Tonawanda, New York
Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS)

Psychiatrist to Hams wrote:


And all the above is your own stupid OPINION and has no basis
in fact whatsoever!

Kinda like yours.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:25:51 -0500, Dee D. Flint wrote:

I would not use it over the air as vulgarity is also not allowed.

The prohibitions in Federal criminal law a

18 USC §1464. Broadcasting obscene language.

Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by
means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The prohibitions in FCC Rules a

97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(4) ... obscene or indecent words or language; ...

[Note that the "profanity" proscribed by Section 1464 is not
present in the Part 73 rule, but I would not want to be the one
to push the issue.... ggg ]

The "Cliff Notes (R)" on this subject, in an FCC Publication "The
Public and Broadcasting" are aimed at broadcast stations but the
prohibition has been deemed equally applicable to Amateur stations
by case law:

Obscenity and Indecency. Federal law prohibits the broadcasting
of obscene programming and regulates the broadcasting of
"indecent" language.

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot
be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must have all
three of the following characteristics:

an average person, applying contemporary community
standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest;

the material must depict or describe, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
applicable law; and

the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecent speech is protected by the First Amendment and cannot
be outlawed. However, the courts have upheld Congress's
prohibition of the broadcast of indecent speech during times of
the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in
the audience......[discussion of "safe harbor" broadcast periods
deleted]... Indecent speech is defined as "language or material
that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for
the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

Profanity that does not fall under one of the above two
categories is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot
be regulated.

Do you find "vulglarity" amongst the material above? I sure don't.

Use or non-use of vulgarity is much more of an issue of one's
upbringing and command of the language.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:36:04 -0500, John Kasupski wrote:

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the
famous "7 words" list.

It does, however, contain a word that is.

And as every communications or constitutional lawyer knows, the
"Seven Dirty Words " (not the actual title of the monologue by
George Carlin) has no standing at all in law, and was attached to
the Supreme Court's _Pacifica_ decision only because it was the
thing that the original complaining listener objected to being
broadcast.

The FCC has never used a list of words for enforcement purposes.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

John Kasupski wrote:

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the famous "7
words"
list.


It does, however, contain a word that is.


So does "Matshu****a", Japan once had a prime
minister "Mr Take****a". ANother guy from Japan
once gave a paper at a cunsumer electronics
convention, Mr Fukuda. But I think the FCC
won't have a problem with any of these except
"bull****".

Phil Kane wrote:


the material must depict or describe, in a patently
offensive way,

I have 13 patents, and another patent pending. If I
invent new dirty material that is patently offensive,
can I get the patent on it? :-)

sexual conduct specifically defined by
applicable law; and

the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecent speech is protected by the First Amendment and cannot
be outlawed. However, the courts have upheld Congress's
prohibition of the broadcast of indecent speech during times of
the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in
the audience......[discussion of "safe harbor" broadcast periods
deleted]... Indecent speech is defined as "language or material
that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for
the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

I guess that explains how and why I once heard the word
"Motherf*cker" on terrestrial broadcast TV around 10:30PM.
Channel 17 in Philly showed "Fort Apache the Bronx" then.
Or is it that the rules are looser if your station carrier
is above 200MHz? :-)

Profanity that does not fall under one of the above two
categories is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot
be regulated.

Somehow I thought "Profanity" = "Obscene speech"....

Subject: amateur radio hypocrites
From: "Phil Kane"
Date: 12/4/2004 8:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Do you find "vulglarity" amongst the material above? I sure don't.

I can't find "vulglarity" ANYwhere, Phil... ! ! !

73 with a tug on the leg....

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:36:04 -0500, John Kasupski wrote:

Obscenity would get you a citation, but bull**** is not on the
famous "7 words" list.

It does, however, contain a word that is.

And as every communications or constitutional lawyer knows, the
"Seven Dirty Words " (not the actual title of the monologue by
George Carlin) has no standing at all in law, and was attached to
the Supreme Court's _Pacifica_ decision only because it was the
thing that the original complaining listener objected to being
broadcast.

The FCC has never used a list of words for enforcement purposes.

--

People forget that Carlin's routine was meant to be *comedy*, and as such was
not meant to be taken as fact. But as sometimes happens, it started an urban
legend.

btw, George Carlin is often listed as the author of things he never wrote.

It is my impression of the rules that FCC is more concerned with context than
the actual words. The reason for the hullaballo (and fines) over the Janet
Jackson
"wardrobe malfunction" (as I understand it) was that it was not to be
reasonably expected in a football halftime show. IOW, it was completley
unexpected in the context of the program.

Contrast this with "Saving Private Ryan", which was aired unedited despitre its
violence and language. The audience was cautioned of the film's content before
and during the broadcast. The film's MPAA rating is public information, too.
Most of all, the language and violence were in an accurate context, and were an
integral part of telling the story. Thus, certain language could be used that
would rate a fine in a different context.

The way all this relates to amateur radio is: We hams do not usually operate on
a published schedule, nor do we have a rating system to let listeners know
ahead of time what to expect. Therefore, all amateur radio communication must,
by the rules, be "G rated" - or run the rsik of enforcement action.

At least IMINALO (In My "I'm Not A Lawyer" Opinion)

73 de Jim, N2EY