Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#71
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Y'all are? Well, heck, why not...you demand Obediance to the old standards and practices in a radio hobby...and have for years without going along with any change. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then! On the contrary...:-) If the code test were eliminated, I wouldn't bother to be here. :-) Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. Tsk. The only thing the code test requirement did was to form the ARS as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. :-) Plus a lot of puerile nyah-nyahs from those who could do morse at high rate having playground glee at talking down to those who couldn't. :-) If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS license numbers thread, where he starts out with Oh, my, aren't you the most Self-Righteous One! :-) How does the elimination of the morse code test for a U.S. amateur radio license, any class, suddenly "Destroy the ARS?" Tsk. You should be reporting me to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General for all this "destruction!" Yup, lots of Morsemen would be faced with "destruction" of the ARS AS THEY KNOW IT if the code test were eliminated. Woe! Great weeping and gnashing of gums on that. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... That is one I would like to forget. Not to worry. You simply can't remember that a PCTA extra said the same to me, years ago, and relatively recently. Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. Tsk. The "autoalarm" was already in-place on many ships prior to 1941...including the North Atlantic fabled in much earlier tales of morsemanship. How many NON-essential crewmen are there on ocean-going vessels, now or in the past four decades? Hint: Not many. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said. Putting aside your own personal hatred of a newsgroup opponent, you COULD have looked at the past history of the larger world of radio communications and - if at all possible (but unlikely in here) - dispassionately agreed with the larger world of radio. "Skilled radio operator" does NOT mean what it did in the 1920s and 1930s when morsemanship was needed. This is 80 to 70 years later, remember? Tsk. The elimination of the morse "skill" was already starting in the 1940s. Those who were self-righteous about THEIR mighty morsemanship had blinders on and couldn't see it. All those "sparks" and their mighty macho morsemanship "skills" were being displaced/downsized/nonessential on ocean-going vessels by the 1960s. [today's maritime radio services use voice by VHF of HF SSB and Data on HF...both of which require NO morsemanship whatsoever] If you wish to buy into mythos of morsemanship, fine. But, trying to convince everyone in the new millennium that this is really the 1920s and 1930s in radio sounds remarkably stupid. "Dumbed- down" to reality, in fact. Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. Posted on 16 Jan 05 |
#72
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Len Over 21 wrote: If you wish to buy into mythos of morsemanship, fine. But, trying to convince everyone in the new millennium that this is really the 1920s and 1930s in radio sounds remarkably stupid. "Dumbed- down" to reality, in fact. You keep rehashing this "1920's to 1930's" crap, Lennie, but ahve yet to provide even one iota of documentation as to anyone saying any such thing. Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. An altered state of reality is what YOU are in Lennie. Seek TRUE profesional help, not a correspondence course trained wannabe like Mrs Lennie. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
#73
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Y'all are? Well, heck, why not...you demand Obediance to the old standards and practices in a radio hobby...and have for years without going along with any change. Wrong attributes, Len. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then! On the contrary...:-) If the code test were eliminated, I wouldn't bother to be here. :-) Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. Tsk. The only thing the code test requirement did was to form the ARS as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. :-) Plus a lot of puerile nyah-nyahs from those who could do morse at high rate having playground glee at talking down to those who couldn't. :-) I haven't experienced that. If they are "talking down to you, perhaps there is another reason? If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS license numbers thread, where he starts out with Oh, my, aren't you the most Self-Righteous One! :-) Deduction does not make a person self-righteous. and last time I checked, there was no law against desiring the destruction of the ARS. How does the elimination of the morse code test for a U.S. amateur radio license, any class, suddenly "Destroy the ARS?" It does not suddenly destroy the ARS. What it does is probably acquire another group of people who are similar to the people that were enticed by the no-code Technician test, who will simply drop out. One needs a good interest level to learn Morse code. These people are likely to stick with the program. So as attrition takes out the Olde Tymers, and the new group simply loses interest and goes on to video games or whatever, the ARS goes away eventually with a wimper. Will this happen? I dunno, but there is some plausibility to it. Tsk. You should be reporting me to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General for all this "destruction!" Wanna engage in civil discussion of the Morse code issue, or do you want to go off on wild tangents with statements like that? Yup, lots of Morsemen would be faced with "destruction" of the ARS AS THEY KNOW IT if the code test were eliminated. Woe! Great weeping and gnashing of gums on that. And not a problem at all for you. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... That is one I would like to forget. Not to worry. You simply can't remember that a PCTA extra said the same to me, years ago, and relatively recently. So a second incident excuses the first? Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. Tsk. The "autoalarm" was already in-place on many ships prior to 1941...including the North Atlantic fabled in much earlier tales of morsemanship. How many NON-essential crewmen are there on ocean-going vessels, now or in the past four decades? Hint: Not many. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said. Putting aside your own personal hatred of a newsgroup opponent, you COULD have looked at the past history of the larger world of radio communications and - if at all possible (but unlikely in here) - dispassionately agreed with the larger world of radio. I there are perhaps 3 people in this world that I dislike enough that a person might term it hatred. You are most definitely NOT one of them. I am ready to have civil debate. Are you? "Skilled radio operator" does NOT mean what it did in the 1920s and 1930s when morsemanship was needed. This is 80 to 70 years later, remember? Nope, I'm a new ham. I don't remember much on the subject more than 5 years ago. Tsk. The elimination of the morse "skill" was already starting in the 1940s. Those who were self-righteous about THEIR mighty morsemanship had blinders on and couldn't see it. All those "sparks" and their mighty macho morsemanship "skills" were being displaced/downsized/nonessential on ocean-going vessels by the 1960s. [today's maritime radio services use voice by VHF of HF SSB and Data on HF...both of which require NO morsemanship whatsoever] If you wish to buy into mythos of morsemanship, fine. But, trying to convince everyone in the new millennium that this is really the 1920s and 1930s in radio sounds remarkably stupid. "Dumbed- down" to reality, in fact. Same old argument. It is a valid mode, despite its age. So much of what we are using is pretty old technology. SSB is old. FM is old. Even digital modes are hardly new stuff Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. I hope to enjoy it as much as you do your interest in Ham radio. |
#74
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kim wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? Len obviously cares a lot. It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just isn't. I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a reality check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few cases. No reality check needed, Kim. If a person is honest and straightforward, then it comes across. If a person uses various "personas" fro their posting, then that also comes across. If a person needs to disguise themselves, if they feel comfortable tossing brickbats at another, disregarding that there is a human on the other side, and that Usenet is not a sort of insulting text game that they play with their computers, then that also tells a lot about the person. It is like people claiming that alcohol causes them to do evil and antisocial things. Sorry, but they were already evil and antisocial. The alcohol simply allowed them to shift the blame. For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or inciting "a riot" so to speak! Because the person is like that. I know a lot about people that incite major antagonism in newsgroups, even if they are civil in person. I know I can get certain people going in a heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously... In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so... I don't use it to determine anothers personality, but I can determine true personality from it. YMMV. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#75
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Yep. So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by and large don't. Many coded Techs are quite active on 6m. Most no code Techs are not. In fact, most of the no code Techs I encounter are on 2m or 70cm repeaters only. Once almost never hears them on simplex frequencies. They stick to FM and aren't heard using SSB or CW on 2m or 70cm. Around here, most no code Techs are not active radio club members. Most do not partcipate in ARES groups. Most are not members of the ARRL. To sum it up, it seems that most no code Techs are about 2m FM repeater use. Dave K8MN |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Y'all are? Well, heck, why not...you demand Obediance to the old standards and practices in a radio hobby...and have for years without going along with any change. No one here has gone along with any change in amateur radio? How did you come to be in possession of this rare informational gem? If the code test were eliminated, I wouldn't bother to be here. :-) It was reduced to 5 wpm. Your presence wasn't reduced by the same percentage. :-) :-) Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. Tsk. The only thing the code test requirement did was to form the ARS as the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. :-) That seems to be a song sung by the Archaic Newsgroup Haunter. :-) Plus a lot of puerile nyah-nyahs from those who could do morse at high rate having playground glee at talking down to those who couldn't. :-) You really should see someone about that complex you have. :-) Putting aside your own personal hatred of a newsgroup opponent, you COULD have looked at the past history of the larger world of radio communications and - if at all possible (but unlikely in here) - dispassionately agreed with the larger world of radio. Personal hatred? I don't hate you, Len. In fact, I rather pity you. Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society is what you are in. Enjoy. That's incorrect. The Amateur Radio Service is what we're in. You aren't. Dave K8MN |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: [snip] So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by and large don't. Many coded Techs are quite active on 6m. Most no code Techs are not. In fact, most of the no code Techs I encounter are on 2m or 70cm repeaters only. Once almost never hears them on simplex frequencies. They stick to FM and aren't heard using SSB or CW on 2m or 70cm. Around here, most no code Techs are not active radio club members. Most do not partcipate in ARES groups. Most are not members of the ARRL. To sum it up, it seems that most no code Techs are about 2m FM repeater use. Dave K8MN I am happy to report that at least in our club we have some very active Tech no codes participating in a wide variety of activities. Two of our club officers are no codes. One of the hams who was instrumental in getting a local antenna ordinance changed was a no code tech (unfortunately he passed away shortly thereafter). I've heard several on FM simplex and sideband. Quite a few participate in our public service events. So there are some who choose to explore other avenues of ham radio besides the repeater. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Kim wrote: I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a reality check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few cases. No reality check needed, Kim. If a person is honest and straightforward, then it comes across. If a person uses various "personas" fro their posting, then that also comes across. If a person needs to disguise themselves, if they feel comfortable tossing brickbats at another, disregarding that there is a human on the other side, and that Usenet is not a sort of insulting text game that they play with their computers, then that also tells a lot about the person. Well, your experiences have been entirely different from mine, then, Mike. Long, long before I ever discovered the "newsgroupie" thingy, my husband and I had discovered "chat" rooms. We were participants in many, many venues and, in several, were even clannish to the extent of forming parties and get-togethers wherein travel was often involved to get to the area where we were all to meet and have dinners/lunches, whatever. In nearly all cases, the people we met in person were vastly, and I do mean VASTLY, different from their personalities online. I would say that, of about or around 100 people, 2, maybe 3, (not including ourselves) were "normal." Not to insult anyone, but I would define normal as in: relative to our frame of nature, background, etc. What we considered proper and presentable was mostly different from the folks we met. In fact, it was meeting the folks that drove us from the whole "enjoyment" we THOUGHT we were having with these chat rooms...LMAO! It is like people claiming that alcohol causes them to do evil and antisocial things. Sorry, but they were already evil and antisocial. The alcohol simply allowed them to shift the blame. Oh, I wholeheartedly believe that. However, I believe that it was the nature of the "incognito" status that maybe shaded how we really thought people were. I mean, what one may find humorous in the text venue, may turn out to be outright obnoxious in person. The apparent sweetest person on the planet Earth, online, becomes in person, the most nearly evil person one's ever known. Even I, as crass as I am (and I am) have manners in public and do not take pride in embarrassing people and generally know the line. Many we met were oblivious to society boundaries and were quite embarrassing to be around. For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or inciting "a riot" so to speak! Because the person is like that. I know a lot about people that incite major antagonism in newsgroups, even if they are civil in person. MMMmmm mmmm, gotta disagree there. Why? Because, here in this newsgroup, I probably have a reputation for being pretty antagonistic. In person, I am very deliberate, cautious, calculating and very, very mindful of keeping a group of people, who may lean toward being argumentative, on the friendly and "get along with each other" end. If you knew me in person, as many do, you'd be told by others that I am one of the most cohesive building partners anyone's ever met. I am also generally in a position of listening, collaboration, and leadership--and take great pride in being very good at it. Here, to hell with all that. In fact, it has in the past been a great tension reliever. I don't generally care about anyone on this newsgroup because I've taught myself not to care about people I really don't know--and I really don't know anyone here except, maybe, Cecil...and he's a great guy from what I met of him. I know I can get certain people going in a heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously... In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so... I don't use it to determine anothers personality, but I can determine true personality from it. YMMV. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes, my mileage definitely varies. I've been way too exposed to way too many people in the past, who were internet "friends" until I met them...good Lord thank God they're many, many, many miles away. Kim W5TIT |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kim wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a reality check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few cases. No reality check needed, Kim. If a person is honest and straightforward, then it comes across. If a person uses various "personas" fro their posting, then that also comes across. If a person needs to disguise themselves, if they feel comfortable tossing brickbats at another, disregarding that there is a human on the other side, and that Usenet is not a sort of insulting text game that they play with their computers, then that also tells a lot about the person. Well, your experiences have been entirely different from mine, then, Mike. Long, long before I ever discovered the "newsgroupie" thingy, my husband and I had discovered "chat" rooms. We were participants in many, many venues and, in several, were even clannish to the extent of forming parties and get-togethers wherein travel was often involved to get to the area where we were all to meet and have dinners/lunches, whatever. In nearly all cases, the people we met in person were vastly, and I do mean VASTLY, different from their personalities online. I would say that, of about or around 100 people, 2, maybe 3, (not including ourselves) were "normal." Not to insult anyone, but I would define normal as in: relative to our frame of nature, background, etc. What we considered proper and presentable was mostly different from the folks we met. In fact, it was meeting the folks that drove us from the whole "enjoyment" we THOUGHT we were having with these chat rooms...LMAO! Yeah that probably would be disappointing. I have very little experience in chat rooms, but it seems that many people in them are trying to impress other people in some fashion. It is like people claiming that alcohol causes them to do evil and antisocial things. Sorry, but they were already evil and antisocial. The alcohol simply allowed them to shift the blame. Oh, I wholeheartedly believe that. However, I believe that it was the nature of the "incognito" status that maybe shaded how we really thought people were. I mean, what one may find humorous in the text venue, may turn out to be outright obnoxious in person. The apparent sweetest person on the planet Earth, online, becomes in person, the most nearly evil person one's ever known. And a person with severe conflicts. Even I, as crass as I am (and I am) have manners in public and do not take pride in embarrassing people and generally know the line. Many we met were oblivious to society boundaries and were quite embarrassing to be around. For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or inciting "a riot" so to speak! Because the person is like that. I know a lot about people that incite major antagonism in newsgroups, even if they are civil in person. MMMmmm mmmm, gotta disagree there. Why? Because, here in this newsgroup, I probably have a reputation for being pretty antagonistic. In person, I am very deliberate, cautious, calculating and very, very mindful of keeping a group of people, who may lean toward being argumentative, on the friendly and "get along with each other" end. If you knew me in person, as many do, you'd be told by others that I am one of the most cohesive building partners anyone's ever met. I am also generally in a position of listening, collaboration, and leadership--and take great pride in being very good at it. And I don't doubt that a bit. I purposely don't pick up on the things that would seem obvious. We send out other and subtle clues Here, to hell with all that. In fact, it has in the past been a great tension reliever. I don't generally care about anyone on this newsgroup because I've taught myself not to care about people I really don't know--and I really don't know anyone here except, maybe, Cecil...and he's a great guy from what I met of him. So I've heard from all accounts. My limited impression of Cecil is that he is most likely very genial, has a good sense of humor, and a bit stubborn (that last was obvious! 8^) I know I can get certain people going in a heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously... In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so... I don't use it to determine anothers personality, but I can determine true personality from it. YMMV. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes, my mileage definitely varies. I've been way too exposed to way too many people in the past, who were internet "friends" until I met them...good Lord thank God they're many, many, many miles away. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Problem for boaters and APRS? | Policy | |||
Problem for boaters and APRS? | General | |||
Problem for boaters and APRS? | Policy | |||
APRS Safety Question | Digital | |||
APRS Safety Question | Digital |