| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
July 24th 05, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Poor attempt at a redirect. Try to stay focussed. "Focused", Lennie. Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?! "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. (Oh jeeze...same Lennie crap, fermented and dropped on the door step again...) But Part 97 DOES mandate that the Amateur Radio Service serve as a training enviroment for self-education and training. Unless they set the goals, what are they to train for? Actually, that "argument" is total bull#### OUT of the academic arena. You and Markie must have shareware'd that dictionary of profanities, Lennie. Yuck - potty mouth ;^) ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications. A-hem..... (reading back across header on top... 'rec.radio.AMATEUR.policy'....) I'll bet it's hotter down south than it is in the summer, too! It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes longer, and no longer "gets through" better. "Takes longer" than what? You taking that Extra right out of the box? All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC isn't a fraternity house either. And you're lying again. Sheeesh...couldn't keep it to even marginally valid arguments, could you...?!?! I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time. Funny... We've thought the same of you a LOT of the times... Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. You're a documented liar. You're more verbose and grammatically correct than other liars in this forum (specifically N0IMD and KB9RQZ) but you're a liar none-the-less. Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About? If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Whew.... EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION. The newsgroup moderator has spoken. Carry on, Lennie... Steve, K4YZ Can I go to the bathroom now???? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#2
July 25th 05, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're "loaded". "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. I'll have to remember that one! The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory destroyed. If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Bummer! Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. To the max, man... It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. It's where their heads are at. Different scene. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude. Whew.... To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
July 25th 05, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
July 25th 05, 09:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: cut Hey, Jim. some people in here offer a lot of qoutes not supported by facts. I think they are interpreted qoutes. You know, when they say we say something and it really isn't what we said, but what they wanted us to say so they could qoute us on it so we could be wrong...... hehe there is a lot of that Do you see the contradiction? Always have cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#6
July 26th 05, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: cut Hey, Jim. some people in here offer a lot of qoutes not supported by facts. I think they are interpreted qoutes. You know, when they say we say something and it really isn't what we said, but what they wanted us to say so they could qoute us on it so we could be wrong...... hehe there is a lot of that Which sometimes makes it hard to have a good discussion.. Do you see the contradiction? Always have cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service You mean the frequency they use? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#7
July 26th 05, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service You mean the frequency they use? the freq and the fact they are not allowed beyond a certain range dispite the freqs being quite cappable of sustaining it - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#8
July 25th 05, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake  - looks like the ARRL missed that onetoo....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
|
#9
July 25th 05, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake - looks like the ARRL missed that onetoo....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#10
July 26th 05, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Leo wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. It is an ambiguous statement though. It is true enough. But does it mean that the FCC defines Amateur radio without input from amateurs or anyone else? No. The FCC defines it, and in taking opinion from Hams and others, they will obviously disappoint some people. I have no problem with the statement. The presentation of the statement was intended to inflame though....period... And it worked. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake - looks like the ARRL missed that onetoo....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. So it's a hobby. So what? It *is* a service too. Lets face it - if a person makes the argument that it is a hobby because the ARRL says so on a web page, they must concede that it is also a service, unless they are going to declare the *actual* name of the FCC calls the ARS to be less accurate than what ARRL types on a web page. To do otherwise is to invite looking foolish. Period In short, perhaps the FCC declares the Amateur Radio Service to be a service..... Period??? Or maybe they were just like saying? Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." Why should they. Hardly polite talk! Period The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. Period snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Period Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. The FCC says so. Period In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. Period.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Point of grammar, Jim. Is there a period after period? Does the period suffice, or is it redundantly periodic? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Hybrid Mode
