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

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

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.

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 -

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

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

"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

"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

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 -