|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
|
Where's the beef?
wrote First, it assumes that hams with the various license classes stay only in their respective subbands, in that you won't find Extras in the Advanced and General parts, or Advanceds in the General parts, etc. But that's not how it works. You've got it all bass-ackwards, Jim. My "experiment" presumes that you won't find Advanced in the Extra portion of the band, and you won't find Generals in either the Advanced or Extra segments. Thus, if incentive licensing is working, there ought to be a noticeable difference in operator/technical skills evident between the opposite ends of the band segments. As you so ably point out, that difference doesn't seem to exist. I rest my case. No benefits of incentive licensing are observed in the real world. wrote I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. Dee, you should submit this as the funniest-rrap-paragraph-of-the-month. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... "Dee Flint" wrote One of the elements is self training and technical knowlegde. You encourage that by using increased privileges (spectrum and power) to get people to study and take additional tests. If it were working, it would be evident on the air. But I'll encourage you to try a little practical experiment to see if you can detect the results in the real world. You'll need the following materials for the experiment: 1. A reasonable sensitive receiver, hooked to a working antenna. 2. A blindfold. 3. A set of earphones. 4. No extreme hearing impairments. 5. A comfortable chair. Seat your self at the receiver, and tune it to the TOP of a popular band with good propagation to the USA, probably 40 or 75 meters. Don the earphones and plug them in. Set the receiver RF gain full open and the AF gain at a comfortable level. Now place your blindfold over your eyes. Slowly tune the receiver down the band. If incentive licensing is working, when you cross over the General/Advanced boundary and again when you cross the Advanced/Extra boundary, you should detect a noticeable increase in the "training and technical knowlege" of the operators because of better/cleaner signals, more sophisticated technical discussions, and other evidence of better training and technical knowlege. If your ear does NOT detect this sort of evidence as you tune across those boundaries, then you can conclude (as I have) that incentive licensing is an abject failure. 73, de Hans, K0HB As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing at all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner since propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no way to tell if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the particular ham chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party. I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences are just not there. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
"Bill Sohl" wrote As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing at all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner since propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no way to tell if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the particular ham chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party. I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences are just not there. They're relaxing, Bill. |
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
On 13 Dec 2005 09:25:02 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: Jimmie just said "major typo alert!" He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical error" but that is apparently okay for him to do. It's not okay for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla. The fact of the matter is, Lennie, that more often than not, you either refuse to admit your errors, or even worse, defend them with lengthy, windy pontifications intended to obfuscate them. Jim's character doesn't seem to permit him to act that way. I see you're still using diminutives that aren't directed at you. Of course your sock puppet does nothing to suggest otherwise to you, yet presumes to chastise others for not engaging in such conduct. What's that term you're always using...."double standard"...?!?! why are you obsessed with dimutives stevie clearly you are dumb enough to think being called stevie is worse than being called a pedophile (you have said this more or less for months Seems you NCTA "guys" have more than your fair share! (as if there was any doubt.....) Steve, K4YZ everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... "Dee Flint" wrote One of the elements is self training and technical knowlegde. You encourage that by using increased privileges (spectrum and power) to get people to study and take additional tests. If it were working, it would be evident on the air. But I'll encourage you to try a little practical experiment to see if you can detect the results in the real world. You'll need the following materials for the experiment: 1. A reasonable sensitive receiver, hooked to a working antenna. 2. A blindfold. 3. A set of earphones. 4. No extreme hearing impairments. 5. A comfortable chair. Seat your self at the receiver, and tune it to the TOP of a popular band with good propagation to the USA, probably 40 or 75 meters. Don the earphones and plug them in. Set the receiver RF gain full open and the AF gain at a comfortable level. Now place your blindfold over your eyes. Slowly tune the receiver down the band. If incentive licensing is working, when you cross over the General/Advanced boundary and again when you cross the Advanced/Extra boundary, you should detect a noticeable increase in the "training and technical knowlege" of the operators because of better/cleaner signals, more sophisticated technical discussions, and other evidence of better training and technical knowlege. If your ear does NOT detect this sort of evidence as you tune across those boundaries, then you can conclude (as I have) that incentive licensing is an abject failure. 73, de Hans, K0HB As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing at all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner since propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no way to tell if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the particular ham chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party. I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences are just not there. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Why would you expect a higher quality of language behavior? All amateurs are required to know and adhere to the same rules regardless of license. Language behavior is covered on the Technician test. People with a talent for code will tend to be better than the typical operator regardless of license. Some people, like myself, may choke during a CW ragchew regardless of our CW skill or license level. People who regularly DX will be able to finesse their way into getting the DX station at low power and people who do not regularly DX will have a much rougher time, again regardless of class. What everyone overlooks is that the test is merely the basic required book knowledge expected for each level. Experience is not tested for. The person who goes straight to Extra will have no more experience and no more operating skills than anyone else. However, he/she starts with more book knowledge as a platform to build on. But anyone can choose to gain the same knowledge. They do not have to wait until they are studying for a new license. Plus every amateur is free to pursue improving their skills. The license is a starting point not a stopping point. Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests, the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Where's the beef?
KØHB wrote:
wrote First, it assumes that hams with the various license classes stay only in their respective subbands, in that you won't find Extras in the Advanced and General parts, or Advanceds in the General parts, etc. But that's not how it works. You've got it all bass-ackwards, Jim. No, just the opposite, Hans. My "experiment" presumes that you won't find Advanced in the Extra portion of the band, and you won't find Generals in either the Advanced or Extra segments. And you usually won't! But you *will* find Extras in the Advanced and General parts of the band, and Advanceds in the General part of the band. Thus, if incentive licensing is working, there ought to be a noticeable difference in operator/technical skills evident between the opposite ends of the band segments. That difference, if it exists, would be diluted by the Extras in the Advanced and General sections, and the Advanceds in the General section. Muddies the waters, as it were. There's also the effect of the bandplans. The lower parts of the subbands are often where the DX and DXers hang out, so you hear more pileups and less discussion. Many of the "watering holes" for various interests and modes are intentionally placed in the General sections: AM is near 3885, PSK31 is around 3579, QRP is around 3540, etc. As you so ably point out, that difference doesn't seem to exist. It's interesting that you suggest the experiment on 'phone, not CW ;-) I rest my case. No benefits of incentive licensing are observed in the real world. There are other experiments to try. For example, look in the amateur radio publications - particularly the most technical- and operating-skill-emphasis ones like QEX and NCJ - and see what license classes the authors of the best articles hold. wrote I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. Dee, you should submit this as the funniest-rrap-paragraph-of-the-month. A good one! But lemme tellya what I recall from the late 1960s.... I remember the howling and cussing over the coming of the then-new regs. I was surprised that so many hams that were older and more experienced than I were so upset about having to take more exams. You'd have thought that the Advanced and Extra writtens were EE courses, and that the 20 wpm Morse Code exams were world-class. Or something. But after a bit of listening and questioning, the situation became clear. Most of those complaining had been licensed after the Great Giveaway of Christmas 1952, and had little or no knowledge of how things were before Generals and Conditionals got all privileges. Many of those who complained the loudest had started out as Novices, studied and practiced like mad during their Novice year, and then upgraded to General or Conditional. Once they'd gotten to the General/Conditional level, they basically sat back and considered themselves "fully qualified", and relaxed. What really ticked them off was that FCC was saying there was more to learn! It didn't help their addytood when young squirts like me started showing up with Advanceds and Extras....back when Extras made up less than 2% of US hams.... What was even funnier was when some of the worst complainers and moaners started working towards the Advanced and Extra and found they could pass those exams. They discovered that 20 wasn't all that fast if you actually *used* Morse Code on the air for a while, and that knowing the technical stuff in the books well enough to pass the exams didn't take an EE degree. Soon there were Advanceds and Extras all over the place and it was no big deal. Now the circle is complete... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message [snip] Is that why the FCC gives ALL power priveleges to their ENTRY LEVEL LICENSEES? Entry level licensees do NOT have all power privileges. Technicians with code are an entry level license. On HF frequencies, they are limited to 200 watts output. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And 200 watts on VHF/UHF??? |
Where's the beef?
KØHB wrote: wrote First, it assumes that hams with the various license classes stay only in their respective subbands, in that you won't find Extras in the Advanced and General parts, or Advanceds in the General parts, etc. But that's not how it works. You've got it all bass-ackwards, Jim. My "experiment" presumes that you won't find Advanced in the Extra portion of the band, and you won't find Generals in either the Advanced or Extra segments. Thus, if incentive licensing is working, there ought to be a noticeable difference in operator/technical skills evident between the opposite ends of the band segments. As you so ably point out, that difference doesn't seem to exist. I rest my case. No benefits of incentive licensing are observed in the real world. wrote I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. Dee, you should submit this as the funniest-rrap-paragraph-of-the-month. 73, de Hans, K0HB At one time I noted that most of the violations were awarded to the higher class licensees. I don't know if that was an artifact of the FCC picking on them because they should know better, or if it had to do with the kind of attitudes of so many of the Extra's display on RRAP carrying over the the bands. |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... "Dee Flint" wrote One of the elements is self training and technical knowlegde. You encourage that by using increased privileges (spectrum and power) to get people to study and take additional tests. If it were working, it would be evident on the air. But I'll encourage you to try a little practical experiment to see if you can detect the results in the real world. You'll need the following materials for the experiment: 1. A reasonable sensitive receiver, hooked to a working antenna. 2. A blindfold. 3. A set of earphones. 4. No extreme hearing impairments. 5. A comfortable chair. Seat your self at the receiver, and tune it to the TOP of a popular band with good propagation to the USA, probably 40 or 75 meters. Don the earphones and plug them in. Set the receiver RF gain full open and theAF gain at a comfortable level. Now place your blindfold over your eyes. Slowly tune the receiver down the band. If incentive licensing is working, when you cross over the General/Advanced boundary and again when you cross the Advanced/Extra boundary, you should detect a noticeable increase in the "training and technical knowlege" of the operators because of better/cleaner signals, more sophisticated technical discussions, and other evidence of better training and technical knowlege. If your ear does NOT detect this sort of evidence as you tune across those boundaries, then you can conclude (as I have) that incentive licensing is an abject failure. 73, de Hans, K0HB As Jim has already so ably answered, you cannot tell that sort of thing at all. There is no way to tell whether that signal is better/cleaner since propagation variables can impact signal quality too. There is no way to tell if a better signal is due to better knowledge or that the particular ham chooses to have his equipment maintained by a third party. So the FCC shouldn't bother listening to the bands either since they can't tell if a transmitter is having a problem or not. (wink!) I would expect less sophisticated discussions in the Advanced/Extra portions simply because the Generals may be more apt to be seeking knowledge where the Extras may be inclined to relax. There is nothing relaxing about retelling goiter and gall bladder stories. |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am wrote: From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio license. You haven't taken the first step on that path. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose. Later on you will contradict yourself, but that is par for your course. I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago. First Class, one test, no repeats necessary. Of course, Len. You've told us that ancient-history story many times. But as I stated befo The path under discussion is the path to an *amateur radio* license. You have not taken the first step on the path to an *amateur radio* license, Len. That's a fact. And I don't think you ever will. WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license? WHO ever said it was required, Len? Not me. It's not required at all. However, it seems very strange that you're so worked up over requirements for a license you don't seem to have any intention of ever getting (except for that Extra out of the box" outburst) and haven't taken the first step to get. Remember those meetings before your local zoning commission about the proposed change from R to R1? Suppose an outsider who neither lived in the community, owned property there, nor planned to move there, showed up at the meetings. Suppose this nonresident uninvolved outsider spoke at great length about how the zoning should be changed to R1. Wouldn't you want to know why that person was so interested, wouldn't you? but you find a way to personalize it. The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time. They affected everyone after you as well. They did not affect you and they did not affect Len. You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine. Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of "changes of 1968 or 1969." That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio license. "Ana amateur radio license?" Typo alert! Gee, you found *another* one of my typos, Len! Thanks! It should read: "Nobody says you have to get an amateur radio license." Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative to get an amateur radio license. Where did I say that, Len? Show us, if you can. Otherwise you're just making stuff up. Hypocrite. You sure are, sometimes! But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't going to get... "Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU? Len, if you were going to get an amateur radio license, you would have done so years ago. But you didn't get one when the medical waivers were created in 1990. You didn't get one when the Tech lost its code test in 1991. Nor did you get one when the code and written testing for all license classes was drastically reduced in 2000. It's pretty clear that you're not going to get an amateur radio license. So your interest must be in something else. I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio license eliminated. That and a lot more. Such as age limits and more written-test reductions. Plus you'd like to do away with ARRL, subbands, bandplans, and a whole lot more. Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1 deletion? I'm not throwing anything on anyone, Len. I'm just shedding a little light on the subject. Seems to tick you off no end to have to face opposition to your ideas, though. What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status, title, and privileges? I'm not "afraid of" any of that, Len. Besides, if the standards are lowered, my "status" may actually rise, not fall. What the heck, I'd already started 15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any amateur activity. How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing. The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to wage war and kill the enemy. That's true. But you were talking about the radio operating environment, weren't you? Those ADA facilities looked pretty civilized to me. The military "field days" were not little outings in a park once a year. Did they have "field day" at ADA? Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby. How much of that went on at ADA, Len? I didn't see any pictures of that sort of thing. And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else..... To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!" Well, you've just confirmed what I thought, Len. It's all about you. Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home. Maybe you did. Certainly a lot of military personnel did. No denying that. But you seem to deny that *any* civilians face *any* danger. Police - firefighters - emergency medical personnel - they're all civilians, yet they face danger all the time. Look how many NYC police and firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty on September 11, 2001 - how safe were they, Len? One image from that terrible day that I will always recall is the streams of people heading out of and away from the burning towers - while the police, firefighters and EMTs were running *towards* them.... Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want to get into amateur radio. Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently. That doesn't mean I must agree with them. Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree with YOUR opinions? Where do I insist on that, Len? Show us, if you can. You're the one who cannot tolerate difference of opinion, and hurl insults at those who disagree or prove you wrong. There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no problem. Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over and above any other mode. All are optional. So what? You've banged that drum many times, Len, but you don't explain why it should matter. There's no requirement that amateurs use any particular mode, or technology, or frequency band, or power level, or antenna - yet the tests cover a wide range of subjects. Some say "why should I learn Morse Code if I don't intend to use it?" And that's a fair question. The answer is "why should I learn *anything* I don't intend to use?" For example, if someone wants to operate 75 meter AM with hollow state equipment, why do they have to learn all that VHF/UHF stuff, and solid-state stuff, digital stuff, beam antennas, etc.? Just because no one at the FCC is paying attention doesn't mean that the present rules are worthwhile. "No one at the FCC is paying attention"? Just because they disagree with you? It was just a guess. Why else would they allow such arbitrary and redundant rules, exams, and license classes to exist? POLITICS. The present system of U.S. amateur radio regulations, at least up to the year 2000, was lobbied for by the ARRL. The Reading Room at the FCC is full of documents attesting to that. It's also full of documents from non-ARRL sources "lobbying" for the same things. Tsk, bad spin on your part. What spin? It's the truth, Len. Anybody can propose things to FCC, and many have. For example: The ARRL filed the first "incentive licensing" proposal in 1963. Over the next year or so there were at least *10* more proposals, all from non-ARRL sources, that all got RM numbers. That was long before the internet, ECFS, etc. So much for your anti-League spin... The ARRL has remained an equivalent of "City Hall" politics in the past...since the creation of the FCC in 1934 and up until the beginning of the 1990s. It has been clearly evident to disinterested parties in all that time when the league got what the league wanted. What's the problem if the ARRL sometimes succeeds in their proposals? Some ARRL proposals are pretty good. Did you know that way back in 1951 the ARRL *opposed* the creation of the Amateur Extra license? So much for your anti-ARRL spin... Did you read Footnote 142, Len? Tsk, tsk, tsk, you don't like footnotes, Jimmie. You've said so in the past. It's not about me, Len. Did you read Footnote 142? Or are you too proud and angry to even look at it? No to all the above. FCC just doesn't think that amateur radio deserves their maximum-mission attention in their Congress-law- mandated task of regulating ALL United States civil radio. How do you know, Len? You're not FCC. It is very easy to see by any disinterested observer, Jimmie. Go to the FCC website, go to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau page, then through that go to the Amateur Radio page. What is the latest date on important documents there? 2002. There's not been ANY important issues put forth on that page in three years. Not the S25 revisions at WRC-03, not the 18 Petitions, not the release of NPRM 05-143. Now check around the OTHER radio services' issues, documents and so forth and count them up anywhichwayyouwant. Far, far MORE matters discussed by both the Commission and the Public on those OTHER matters than amateur radio issues. So what? I understand the reason for the split in privs between the Tech/Tech+ and the G/A/E licensees. The reason for that barrier no longer exists, but the exam and licensing schema has not kept pace. Time to perform a top-down review, starting with basis and purpose. The time may not be ripe just yet, Brian. Let's wait until the FCC decides what to do about NPRM 05-143 and issue a Memorandum Report and Order on it. I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated. Is your name Brian Burke? No. I'm not him at all. Are you having an identity crisis? No. Are you confused? You sure seem to be, Len. Newsgroup postings are not private conversations. Here, I'll repeat it for you: I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated. I've thought that for a long time. There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the morse code testing for a license issue. Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test. GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do." No. You're not the boss. You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME nor judgemental on "what I will do." I sure as heck don't want to be you, Len! But I have all the qualifications needed to judge what you will do. No judgement is really needed, though. You've already started on other areas besides getting rid of the Morse Code test. Age requirements, elimination of license classes, more reductions in the written tests, elimination of subbands and bandplans. Anyone who reads your voluminous postings knows what you're up to, Len. Regardless, "the 1998 ARRL proposal" is OLD HISTORY. It doesn't apply to anything NOW. Brian brought it up. No, you've continually barfed up League-speak in here as a devoted postulant at the Church of St. Hiram. No, Brian brought it up. You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't apply to anything NOW.... Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion" concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the Imposter (aka "K4YZ"). No, you've mentioned it many times in many contexts. As if it somehow mattered. And what's all this "imposter" nonsense anyway? You claim to know who did and did not serve in the US military, so it should be easy to find out who is and is not a veteran of the United States Marine Corps - right? Something about databases? You keep demanding DD-214s. If K4YZ sent you his DD-214 electronically, would you admit that you were wrong and that he is, indeed, a veteran? Or would you carry on as you usually do? I think the latter. I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done by morse code mode since 1948 Why is that valid to "amateur" radio?? ...for the reason being that I was assigned at a major Army communications station serving a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years. One station. One country's army. Yet you try to make it sound like the whole world. Besides, it's a ncient history. Most of all, you contradict yourself. Amateur radio isn't the military. So what the military did all those years ago doesn't have much relevance to amateur radio testing today. YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that. How do you know, Len? You don't know what I have done. There's a lot I have done in my life that I don't write about here. And what does it matter? Suppose someone who *had* been in the military, and *had* done all sorts of radio communication for the military and government service, were to show up here and say that the Morse Code test should be retained for an Amateur Radio license. Would you admit you were wrong and defer to that person's opinion? Or would you abuse them the way you abuse everyone who disagrees with you? I think the latter. In fact I *know* it would be the latter - because it's already happened. So it doesn't matter what my experience or service or education is. All that matters to you is that I disagree with you - and you behave like a three-year-old. For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw... Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight the War on Terror? Bon voyage. I think you're getting a bit wacky, Len. The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change your house in any way, right? Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up. It's a valid analogy. That's why you want me to give it up! Explain to us why it's OK for you to try to keep the neighborhood where you live unchanged and tied to the standards of 1960, but it's not OK for radio amateurs to try to keep the Morse Code test? Explain to us why you demand that others accept 'progress' and 'change', and 'keep up with the times', but yet *you* insist that your neighborhood must not change, and the owners of an adjacent property must conform to *your* idea of what they can do with their land. Know what's really ironic? The end result was that they built houses that are now worth *more* than yours! Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O port? One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots of things. Sure they can. Doesn't mean they should. I can say all kinds of nasty things like that to you - but I don't. Neither does Hans. Do you think anyone is impressed by your outbursts like that? Do you think it makes anyone respect you, or agree with you, or think you're a better person? Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military veterans. So are many others - K8MN, W4NTI, K4YZ, K2UNK, to name just a few. Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!" Ah yes, a classic Anderson hissy-fit. Len, do you think anyone is impressed by your outbursts like that one? Do you think it makes anyone respect you, or agree with you, or think you're a better person? It doesn't. What it does is to make you look like an out-of-control three-year-old who's badly in need of a time-out. |
Where's the beef?
|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message "Dee Flint" wrote in message "K؈B" wrote in message "Dee Flint" wrote I would expect better OPERATING skills, a higher quality of language behavior and perhaps more technical discussions...but forget even the technical discussions....the behavior and operating skill differences are just not there. Why would you expect a higher quality of language behavior? Why would you NOT? Isn't the extra the "highest class?" :-) All amateurs are required to know and adhere to the same rules regardless of license. Ah, but DO they? :-) That's not evident in here. :-) Language behavior is covered on the Technician test. Which "everyone" took, right? :-) People with a talent for code will tend to be better than the typical operator regardless of license. Of COURSE they are! Ask any morseperson...they will ALL say the same thing! BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What everyone overlooks is that the test is merely the basic required book knowledge expected for each level. "Book knowledge?!?" The FCC has NEVER been chartered as an academic institution. Experience is not tested for. The person who goes straight to Extra will have no more experience and no more operating skills than anyone else. WHAT?!? NO EXPERIENCE TESTED?!? How can that be?!? Tsk, anyone passing the Extra "right out of the box" will have ALL the privileges, ALL the status, ALL the title as any other Extra, experience or no. However, he/she starts with more book knowledge as a platform to build on. "Book knowledge" again. Is amateur radio the ONLY place to acquire "radio knowledge?" But anyone can choose to gain the same knowledge. They do not have to wait until they are studying for a new license. Tsk, tsk, tsk. YOu are contradicting OTHER extras in here who have insisted that one MUST get an amateur radio license BEFORE getting any commercial license!!! Plus every amateur is free to pursue improving their skills. The license is a starting point not a stopping point. Gosh...I thought it was a GRANT from the Commission to transmit RF energy on the ham frequencies. Sort of like a hunting or fishing license allows one to hunt or fish in designated areas. Aren't "radiosport" contests all about hunting for contact areas and fishing fishing for radio contacts? :-) Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests, the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so. Wow! Someone should have TOLD the U.S. Army Signal Corps folks at Evans Signal Laboratory in 1946 when they were the first to bounce a radio signal off the moon! Yeah, they should have told the Signal Corps "how to do it" in Korea in the 1950s when they set out all that VHF radio relay equipment in the hills and valleys there. Where WAS the ARRL when all that was going on? They didn't tell the Signal Corps much of anything... |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 5:10 pm
What it does is to make you look like an out-of-control three-year-old who's badly in need of a time-out. Jimmie boy, go play with your radio toys and quit antagonizing the grown-ups here. YOU do not do a good impersonation of an adult. Do your folks have a sitter for you on Saturday night? |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote: From: on Dec 15, 4:42 pm There is nothing relaxing about retelling goiter and gall bladder stories. Who knows, it might be to an Internist MD. :-) Besides, don't "goiter and gall bladder stories" involve OPERATING? that depnds in the past it cetainly did but my own gall stones were dealtwith by some kind of ultra sonics and then flushed out no break in the skin at all operating on gall stone geting kida like CW it is less and less of an operational matter Hi hi. |
Where's the beef?
wrote: wrote: At one time I noted that most of the violations were awarded to the higher class licensees. But was that really true? Did you provide any statistics, or did it just seem that way to you? It's really true that I noted that. If you have unsupervised numbers to contradict me, you 're welcome to post them. This is America, after all. I don't know if that was an artifact of the FCC picking on them because they should know better, or if it had to do with the kind of attitudes of so many of the Extra's display on RRAP carrying over the the bands. Fun fact: The $42,000 fines for ex-KG6IRO have been upheld. When you read what the guy did, it's pretty awful. KG6? From Guam? Guess what class of license he held. And how old he is. Ex-KG6IRO held no license (kind of the reason you had to say "ex"). That was part of the problem. How old he is? Is there an age limit on hams? |
Where's the beef?
wrote:
wrote: wrote: At one time I noted that most of the violations were awarded to the higher class licensees. But was that really true? Did you provide any statistics, or did it just seem that way to you? It's really true that I noted that. If you have unsupervised numbers to contradict me, you 're welcome to post them. This is America, after all. IOW, you have no statistics to back up your claim. I don't know if that was an artifact of the FCC picking on them because they should know better, or if it had to do with the kind of attitudes of so many of the Extra's display on RRAP carrying over the the bands. Fun fact: The $42,000 fines for ex-KG6IRO have been upheld. When you read what the guy did, it's pretty awful. KG6? From Guam? From Bell, California. Just a few miles from yer buddy Len's house in Sun Valley. You know, the neighborhood zoned R1.... Guess what class of license he held. And how old he is. Ex-KG6IRO held no license (kind of the reason you had to say "ex"). He briefly held a Technician license back about 2000. Then FCC figured out who he was and revoked the license. That was part of the problem. The big part was things like deliberate interference to MARS and other communications. How old he is? He's 69 years old. Is there an age limit on hams? Thankfully, there isn't. |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:44:08 GMT, Dave Heil wrote in : snip You are to amateur radio as a grand piano to a NASCAR race. You might need to rent a few extra brain cells to understand this... Where do you rent yours? ...but I think you just paid Len a compliment. You think wrong. Len is as unnecessary and irrelevant to amateur radio as the piano would be to the NASCAR race. He is the golf club at a baseball game. He is the knife at a gunfight. He is the ******* child at the family reunion. Does that clear it up for you? Dave K8MN |
Where's the beef?
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: At one time I noted that most of the violations were awarded to the higher class licensees. But was that really true? Did you provide any statistics, or did it just seem that way to you? It's really true that I noted that. If you have unsupervised numbers to contradict me, you 're welcome to post them. This is America, after all. IOW, you have no statistics to back up your claim. IOW, your role here is to merely cast aspersions without having any unsupervised numbers whatsoever. I don't know if that was an artifact of the FCC picking on them because they should know better, or if it had to do with the kind of attitudes of so many of the Extra's display on RRAP carrying over the the bands. Fun fact: The $42,000 fines for ex-KG6IRO have been upheld. When you read what the guy did, it's pretty awful. KG6? From Guam? From Bell, California. Just a few miles from yer buddy Len's house in Sun Valley. You know, the neighborhood zoned R1.... Never been there. Is it a nice R1? Guess what class of license he held. And how old he is. Ex-KG6IRO held no license (kind of the reason you had to say "ex"). He briefly held a Technician license back about 2000. Then FCC figured out who he was and revoked the license. Good. I am for getting rid of the bad elements regardless of license class. Back in '98 concerning the restructuring, I told the FCC that what bothered be most about restructuring was a lack of enforcement and what bothered me most about maintaining the status quo was a lack of enforcement. That was part of the problem. The big part was things like deliberate interference to MARS and other communications. Not really. I hate to break it to you Jim, but MARS communications do not fall under AMATEUR RADIO, nor the FCC's jurisdiction. This guy could have ended up in a secret prison in Rumania. ;^) How old he is? He's 69 years old. Prime age for bowel problems. Makes 'em cranky. Is there an age limit on hams? Thankfully, there isn't. As long as "thier" lucid. |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message [snip] Is that why the FCC gives ALL power priveleges to their ENTRY LEVEL LICENSEES? Entry level licensees do NOT have all power privileges. Technicians with code are an entry level license. On HF frequencies, they are limited to 200 watts output. Now you've gone and spoiled a perfectly good rant, Dee. Dave K8MN |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am wrote: From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio license. You haven't taken the first step on that path. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose. Lao Tzu. I found some Chinese proverbs which seem quite fitting to your role he "A crane is too obvious when it stands among a flock of chickens and looks very awkward. It is also true with a camel amidst a flock of sheep and a flea when it stands on top of a hairless head. They all carry a pejoritary tone: the thing that outstands others is something awkward if not necessarily bad." You are the crane, the camel or the flea. "There is an argument between a bird who stopped to drank at a well and a frog therein. They were arguing about how the sky looked like. Regarding where they were, they each had a different view. The frog's vision was of course very limited. Therefore, this proverb refers to somebody who has a very narrow-minded and insulated view of what they see or what they think." You are the frog. I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago. First Class, one test, no repeats necessary. Yeah? So? WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license? Who ever told you that it was? Was it necessary to punish amateurs? Who was "punished"? You tell us. You are the one into the dominatrix role. No, *you* need to tell us. You wrote of amateur radio ops being punished over incentive licensing. Back up your claim. but you find a way to personalize it. The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time. They affected everyone after you as well. They did not affect you and they did not affect Len. You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine. Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of "changes of 1968 or 1969." That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio license. "Ana amateur radio license?" Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative to get an amateur radio license. Hypocrite. No one has told you anything of the kind. That's another of your factual errors. But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't going to get... "Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU? Why, *you* said it. I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio license eliminated. That's at least the third version you've told here. Previously, you've waffled between the other two--that you were going to get the "Extra right out of the box or that you weren't going to obtain an amateur radio license. Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1 deletion? Doing what? What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status, title, and privileges? What are you afraid of, Len? That radio amateurs won't show you the respect which you feel is your due? That you won't get into amateur radio before you're past your expiration date? What the heck, I'd already started 15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any amateur activity. How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing. The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to wage war and kill the enemy. Did you wage war or kill an enemy? The military "field days" were not little outings in a park once a year. Did you ever participate in a military "field day"? Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby. Did you operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby? And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else..... To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!" Then I suppose you're disappointed that you're efforts toward proving it have fallen a little short. Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home. Really? How tough was the rear area life in Japan, Len? I don't recall my military service as having been very TOUGH. Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want to get into amateur radio. Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently. That doesn't mean I must agree with them. Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree with YOUR opinions? What's with your schtick here, Leonard? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that all MUST agree with YOUR opinions. There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no problem. Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over and above any other mode. All are optional. Well now! Yessir, that presents a real dilemma, doesn't it. You should be able to suck it up. After all, your military service was way TOUGHER than this easy civilian stuff. There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the morse code testing for a license issue. Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test. Jimmie Noserve, GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do." You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME nor judgemental on "what I will do." We can only go by what you've written, Len. Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on 13.976? And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen. Jimmie with newsgroup wordplay again. About this point, Hans will jump in saying you are "simply mistaken" and babbling about how the "IARU and ITU" are different or other semi-sweet non-sequitur. Can't answer the questions, eh? Jimmie, you present NO valid questions. Ergo, no valid answers required. The questions were valid enough. You just didn't answer them. You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't apply to anything NOW.... Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion" concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the Imposter (aka "K4YZ"). Your tales precede your manufacturer of the term "Dudly the Imposter" by quite some time. I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done by morse code mode since 1948...for the reason being that I was assigned at a major Army communications station serving a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years. YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that. In fact, YOU have NEVER served in any military service of the USA. Naturally you would be upset about anyone else doing something big and important in HF communications. TS. That's funny. Jim knows what I've done in professional communications and I've seen no indication that he has ever become upset over it. Then again, I've never made it seem that what I did professionally carried any weight in amateur radio. For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw... Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight the War on Terror? Bon voyage. Maybe they can just show up on r.r.a.p, read your posts and begin waging the War on Error. The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change your house in any way, right? Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up. Did you miss seeing the parallel to your actions in regard to amateur radio? It was quite evident. Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O port? One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots of things. Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military veterans. YOU have NEVER been an military veteran. I'm a military veteran. You've told me lots of things. I take offense to some of them. Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!" That will take care of Saturday night for you... You certainly write like a fellow who has lost an argument. Dave K8MN |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am wrote: From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio license. You haven't taken the first step on that path. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose. Lao Tzu. Any relation to Zack Lao? I found some Chinese proverbs which seem quite fitting to your role he "A crane is too obvious when it stands among a flock of chickens and looks very awkward. It is also true with a camel amidst a flock of sheep and a flea when it stands on top of a hairless head. They all carry a pejoritary tone: the thing that outstands others is something awkward if not necessarily bad." You are the crane, the camel or the flea. You are the chicken, the sheep or the hairless head? "There is an argument between a bird who stopped to drank at a well and a frog therein. They were arguing about how the sky looked like. Regarding where they were, they each had a different view. The frog's vision was of course very limited. Therefore, this proverb refers to somebody who has a very narrow-minded and insulated view of what they see or what they think." You are the frog. The frog gives the bird. I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago. First Class, one test, no repeats necessary. Yeah? So? One exam to run a 100,000 watt transmitter? What would Jim say? WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license? Who ever told you that it was? It isn't, but the way you and Jim needle Len about getting one... Was it necessary to punish amateurs? Who was "punished"? You tell us. You are the one into the dominatrix role. No, *you* need to tell us. You wrote of amateur radio ops being punished over incentive licensing. Back up your claim. I asked about amateurs being punished. Jim said he lost privileges. He was no longer in the privileged class. but you find a way to personalize it. The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time. They affected everyone after you as well. They did not affect you and they did not affect Len. You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine. Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of "changes of 1968 or 1969." That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio license. "Ana amateur radio license?" Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative to get an amateur radio license. Hypocrite. No one has told you anything of the kind. That's another of your factual errors. Then we will hear no more from you and Jim about Len not having one, right? But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't going to get... "Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU? Why, *you* said it. Why did he say it? I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio license eliminated. That's at least the third version you've told here. Previously, you've waffled between the other two--that you were going to get the "Extra right out of the box or that you weren't going to obtain an amateur radio license. Can't a person want more than one thing? Is Dave putting limits on what people can want? Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1 deletion? Doing what? That voodoo that you do. What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status, title, and privileges? What are you afraid of, Len? That radio amateurs won't show you the respect which you feel is your due? That has certainly been the case on rrap. That you won't get into amateur radio before you're past your expiration date? Len has an expiration date? What is it? What the heck, I'd already started 15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any amateur activity. How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing. The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to wage war and kill the enemy. Did you wage war or kill an enemy? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. The military "field days" were not little outings in a park once a year. Did you ever participate in a military "field day"? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby. Did you operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. What did Jim do? Did he excuse himelf? Was he unfit to serve? And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else..... To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!" Then I suppose you're disappointed that you're efforts toward proving it have fallen a little short. One hundred seventy five miles uphill both ways to the FCC examiners office. In the snow. Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home. Really? How tough was the rear area life in Japan, Len? I don't recall my military service as having been very TOUGH. Must have been why you got out so quickly. Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want to get into amateur radio. Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently. That doesn't mean I must agree with them. Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree with YOUR opinions? What's with your schtick here, Leonard? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that all MUST agree with YOUR opinions. It would be nice that once someone rejects an opinion that they say why. Saying that Len doesn't hold an amateur license is not a good reason to reject Len's opinions wrt the ARS. There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no problem. Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over and above any other mode. All are optional. Well now! Yessir, that presents a real dilemma, doesn't it. You should be able to suck it up. After all, your military service was way TOUGHER than this easy civilian stuff. The regulations don't even define Morse Code let alone Farnsworth Code, but the FCC can deny a license based upon an exam it can't define. There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the morse code testing for a license issue. Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test. Jimmie Noserve, GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do." You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME nor judgemental on "what I will do." We can only go by what you've written, Len. You've written that you contacted out of band Frenchmen on 6m. Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on 13.976? And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen. Jimmie with newsgroup wordplay again. About this point, Hans will jump in saying you are "simply mistaken" and babbling about how the "IARU and ITU" are different or other semi-sweet non-sequitur. Can't answer the questions, eh? Jimmie, you present NO valid questions. Ergo, no valid answers required. The questions were valid enough. You just didn't answer them. Why don't you answer them, Dave? You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't apply to anything NOW.... Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion" concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the Imposter (aka "K4YZ"). Your tales precede your manufacturer of the term "Dudly the Imposter" by quite some time. "manufacture" I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done by morse code mode since 1948...for the reason being that I was assigned at a major Army communications station serving a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years. YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that. In fact, YOU have NEVER served in any military service of the USA. Naturally you would be upset about anyone else doing something big and important in HF communications. TS. That's funny. Jim knows what I've done in professional communications and I've seen no indication that he has ever become upset over it. Then again, I've never made it seem that what I did professionally carried any weight in amateur radio. Your "career" was your DXpedition meal ticket. For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw... Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight the War on Terror? Bon voyage. Maybe they can just show up on r.r.a.p, read your posts and begin waging the War on Error. Steve's gonna hate a bunch of usurpers showing up here. No way he's gonna let them edge him out. And so the war escalates. The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change your house in any way, right? Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up. Did you miss seeing the parallel to your actions in regard to amateur radio? It was quite evident. Amateur radio regulations are a subset of "RADIO REGULATIONS." Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O port? One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots of things. Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military veterans. YOU have NEVER been an military veteran. I'm a military veteran. You've told me lots of things. I take offense to some of them. Ditto. Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!" That will take care of Saturday night for you... You certainly write like a fellow who has lost an argument. Dave K8MN Maybe if he refreshes the screen... |
Easier licensing
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm, wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message Face it, Jimmie, all those classes GREW in order to satisfy some POLITICAL reasons within the amateur community. Such as? Back up your claim - if you can. Tsk, your little political heart have a malfunction? [need a "valve" replacement?] What were the POLITICAL reasons, Len? The "back-up" is the NON-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, indeed ALL the radio regulations since 1912. How is a non-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations any different from an ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, Len? Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories? POLITICS, little Jimmie. It's been pervasive in the very being of the league since 1914. Even if true, is that a bad thing? And how do you know? You weren't there in 1914, Len. A "one- party" system more or less in between the World Wars and on to the immediate post-WW2 era. Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials. Nor does it make regulations. One of its roles is as an advocacy group for amateur radio, just like the NRA is an advocacy group for those who believe in citizens' rights to firearms, and the AARP is an advocacy group for senior citizens (even though the "R" originally meant "retired", one doesn't have to retire to belong to AARP). By the 1970s other groups were being heard from and the league's virtual oligarchy was beginning to dwindle. What other groups? And why the 1970s? There were "other groups" back in the 1940s, Len. I don't think you can name two of the largest. Just the beginning of their influence, but it IS dwindling to the REAL law-makers. You're not one of them, Len. In the beginning there was only ONE license. In the beginning there were no licenses at all. The time of one-amateur-radio-license-class ended more than 70 years ago, Len. U.S. amateur radio licensing began in 1912 92 years ago. [historical fact] 93 years, actually. ;-) Can't you get anyhting right? ;-) The FCC has been in existance for 71 years. [law of the land as of the Communications Act of 1934] "existence", Len. Yes. Amateur radio licenses are earned by passing the required tests. Strange, the FCC says it GRANTS them. Only after they are EARNED. As far as the federal government is concerned, it is a NON-PAYING radio activity that is expressly forbidden to broadcast or engage in common-carrier communications. That's true. Whoa...if you agree to what I said, how can you say you "earned" your license? One earns things other than money, Len. Look it up. How did stamp collecting help with hurricane relief? Amateur radio provided shelter, food, clothing for hurricane victims? It helped to provide those things. Geez, here I thought all they were doing was relaying health and welfare messages...some of the time. Well, you're wrong. Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. But that's not all it is, Len. Grow up and accept that shouting the same old tired lines doesn't convince anyone. Hello? See the word "basically" in my quoted sentence? Yes. So what? Individuals engaged in that HOBBY are licensed because the FCC, the federal agency regulating all civil radio, think that licensing is a tool of regulation. That's partly true. Entirely true. FCC is NOT an academic organization, "grading" amateurs on their radio skills. Actually, it *does* grade them. That's why there are different levels of amateur radio license. You're taking the experience of a few people and a few transmitters and demanding that it apply to everyone and all transmitters. That's just nonsense. Tsk, I thought it was an example. An example that I lived through. An example that you did NOT live through. And what does that example prove, Len? What does your one example prove about *amateur* radio in 2005? Besides, you've already contradicted yourself. The "very ordinary young men" all had some form of technical training, and had been selected for the task. "Selected for the task:" Personnel requirements were for N number of warm bodies within X number of MOS ranges. :-) So they were selected for the task and trained for it. Tsk. Jimmie, you just don't understand how the military works. I understand well enough, Len. You go on at length here about things you're not involved in - why can't others do the same? If you were a "warm body" in the area and came even close to the requirements of filling a TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment) then you "got selected." See? There you go! The transmitters they adjusted were already set up, operating, and the procedures to use them completely worked out. Those "very ordinary young men" all had more-experienced supervision to teach them the tasks and make sure they did it right. Did you expect that everyone had to build everything themselves?!? Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes do. You wouldn't know about that since you've never done it. Do you expect sailors to all get sheet steel and torches and build the ship they are going to serve on? Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes build their equipment from the most basic parts - including sheet metal work. You wouldn't know about that since you've never done it. Do you expect airmen to all get aluminum and engines and build the aircraft they are going to serve on? Of course not. Do you expect choo-choo drivers to build their locomotives themselves? :-) "Choo-choo drivers"? The "drivers" on a steam locomotive are the wheels that are powered, Len. Do try to keep up. And yet it took *days* of on-the-job instruction before they could be left to do the job on their own! Yes, ONE TO THREE DAYS, the latter for the slow-learners and goof- offs. :-) 1 to 3 *days* of instruction.... Even then, the more-experienced supervision was always on-call if a problem arose. That's usually the situation with EVERY military or civilian organization. :-) But not in amateur radio. After some experience, the formerly-inexperienced BECAME the "experienced supervision" people. Sure. So what? Len, you don't seem to be able to understand the concept of "amateur radio station", let alone "operating". Jimmie, YOU don't understand that every other radio service does NOT define either "station" or "operating" by amateur radio "rules." :-) Which means your example isn't valid, Len. UNLICENSED people by the thousands every day in the USA are OPERATING TRANSCEIVERS. Not operating in the amateur radio sense. Oh, you want PLMRS mobiles to send QSLs on "contacts?" Not at all. Do you? Do you want "radiosport contests" among aviation radio or maritime radio services? Why should I? Do you think policemen carrying neat little two-way radios subscribe to QST? :-) Some of them do. "Morse code operation in amateur radio" does NOT involve ALL "skilled operators." Yes, it does. Those operators have skills that you do not have, and I think that bothers the heck out of you. No bother at all to me, Jimmie. Then why are you so upset over K0HB's stories? I just disregarded any NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever required to use it in the military or in the much longer civilian life career I still have. In other words, since there was no money in it for you... It seems to really bother you that I'm better than you at Morse Code. Har! No. Yes. It sure seems that way. So? It's a test of Morse Code skill at a very basic level. Entry- level, nothing more. It nevertheless requires that the operator have the skills. That's the current law, Jimmie. It's just a political thing. It's a good thing. Since no higher deity commanded that morse code testing be done for amateur radio licenses, ordinary humans must have done it. Whatever humans have done, humans can UNDO. Not necessarily. Humans seem to have trouble undoing certain types of messes, such as pollution. The radios they USE are either owned by their employers (businesses, public safety agences as examples) or themselves (private boat or aircraft owners as an example). Some of those radios DO require a licensed person to oversee their operation and technical details, but some do NOT. Depends on the particular radio service. In amateur radio, a licensed amateur radio operator is required. You have a macro for that sentence? :-) Yes, Jimmie, I'm well aware of Title 47 C.F.R.'s Part 97. You sure don't seem to be, Len. Like when you told us that all amateurs with expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses could still operate their amateur radio stations legally.... That's what I've been telling you all along. Well, there you go again with the posturing arrogance... Is it posturing arrogance to tell you the truth? Tsk, tsk, ADJUSTMENT can be done by anyone in a non-radiating test. Takes NO "license" to perform a test-alignment-calibration such as done by factory folks on ham equipment. But that's not "operating", Len. Radar isn't for communications. And the SGC2020 is dirt simple compared to most amateur radio HF transceivers - even the Southgate series are much more complex to operate. Oh, dear, here it comes with posturing arrogance again... From you? Certainly not from me. On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in proper radio procedures for the radios they use. "Certified?" They get neat little certificates (suitable for framing)? Wow! Yes - did you ever see an FAA pilot's license? No, couldn't afford to continue. Poor baby! I did pass the written test and have the confirmation document digitized. Need to see it? :-) Why would I? You're the one hung up on certifications.... Yeah, they pay by plastic, perhaps follow the maker's instructions and fumble around until things sound right. Is there something wrong with using a credit/debit card? Or following manufacturer's instructions? Besides - it's something *you* haven't done. Tsk, tsk, tsk...something I HAVE done, sweetums. Years ago a bunch of us got together to give a friend his retirement and birthday gift, an HF transceiver. That's nice. I had the "plastic" higher level and paid for it, another with a station wagon transported the boxes, yet another provided the Bird Wattmeter and dummy load and we all went through the instruction manual to make sure it worked. NON-radiating test, Jimmie. Perfectly legal. Of course - because you are not qualified to do it on-the-air. There are more than a few of us radio amateurs who design and build our own amateur stations. You haven't done any of that, Len, yet you pass judgement on us as if you are somehow superior. "Modern" amateur band transceivers, transmitters, receivers, etc. are ready-to-play right out of the box. Those are aligned, tested, calibrated, ready-to-go. Sort of like the SGC 2020 private marine version SSB transceiver. :-) The modern amateur radio transceivers I use didn't come that way. Yes, yes, Jimmie, whatever YOU use applies to all other 700+ thousand U.S. amateur radio licensees. :-) None of the others USE anything but what you've USED? Not the point, Len. You said that "MODERN" equipment is a certain way, yet that's not true for all amateur radio equipment. Six months of microwave school, a transmitter that was all set up and ready to go, an experienced instructor, and it still took you an *hour* of instruction? Yes. :-) By the way, part of that Signal Schooling was radar fundamentals. That was because of the close similarity of radar electronics to the electronics used in radio relay equipments coming after WW2. Absolutely NONE of it prepared us for operating ANY of the HF transmitters (36 of them at first) at station ADA in 1953. That's bull. No power supply theory? No electron tube theory? NONE of it prepared anyone for teletypewriter operation, for operation of the VHF and UHF radio relay equipment, for operation of the "carrier" bays. NONE of it involved learning of the General Electric commercial microwave radio relay equipment that ADA would use for primary communication link of transmitters to the rest of the station...we got a two-week "course" by two GE tech-reps to "prepare" us for that in late 1954. No basic electricty or electronics? And just what is YOUR experience at ham bands of 220 MHz and up? More than yours, Len! I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network to use all tone switching for routing without using any microprocessor control. Gosh, you *listened*! I've done a lot more than that! Who is sneering? Not me. The Technician failed in its original purpose. That's a fact. That's only an OPINION, Jimmie. Tsk, better learn some acting skills, redirect that sneer. You can do it with practice. Right now the combined numbers of no-code-Technician and Technician Plus classes make up a bit more that 48% of ALL U.S. amateur radio licenses granted. Almost HALF, Jimmie. 48.1% - 318,462 out of 661,800 as of December 9. Tsk, tsk, tsk. That doesn't agree with www.hamdata.com figures. I didn't use those figures. Oh, yes, you are quoting NON-grace-period figures derived from elsewhere as "official." Heavens, I have to keep taking THAT into account, don't I? :-) You should. But that percentage is *down* from what it was 5 years ago, right after the rules changes. Well now, www.hamdata.com figures also show the totals of EXPIRATIONS versus NEW (never before licensed) licensees. Expirations still exceed the NEW licensees and have for the last year. And for more than 5-1/2 years, the only choice new hams have had for their first license class is the Technician, General, or Extra. Duuhhhhh...stating the obvious again, aren't you? Oh, my, you DO have to try NOT to talk down to everyone. It help you lose your posturing arrogance of superiority... So you let a *name* - a single *word* - stop you from getting an Amateur Radio license. A long time ago another called me a "sunnuvabitch." I put him down with a bleeding nose and lip. Is that a threat, Len? You're not even a novice at amateur radio. Certain words DO have an effect on people, Jimmie. A word of advice: Avoid street fighting...you ain't good at it. Are you? You mean like somebody who thinks the zoning ideas of 1960 should still apply 30-40-45 years later? In most cases, absolutely YES. :-) Does local residence zoning affect radio of any kind? I think not. Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME. SO why shouldn't it change? on entering military service No. The ONLY aptitude test given in regards to radio was a morse code cognition test given to all recruits. Ah - and you didn't make the grade on that one, eh? Explains a lot. I'm glad I didn't make a good aptitude there. Would have wound up in Field Radio and had to go through the remainder out in the boonies somewhere. :-) Now it's clear. You weren't top of the form in Morse Code, so the code must be a bad thing.... tsk, tsk. |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
From: Dave Heil on Dec 18, 8:51 am
wrote: From: on Dec 14, 6:22 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Dec 13 2005 4:32 pm Jim has tatoos? I was imagining his performances in here to be the equivalent of James Mitchum's creepy "preacher" in an old, scary black-and-white film released in the 1950s. Robert Mitchum. 1954. Night of the Hunter from the novel by Davis Grubb. The author was from up the road in Moundsville. The story is set in this area. Hmmmm...that explains a lot about Davie Heil's character...:-) How so? Neither Robert Mitchum nor the character he played came from this area. I wasn't in the movie. Tsk, the way you ACT in here wouldn't get you to the "beginners" entry line to either SAG or SEG. :-) You couldn't even pass for an A-1 Sauce dish at the caterer's table on a set, let alone as an "A-1 Op" in the movies. :-) It might to you, but then again, you got the original story wrong too. Tsk, tsk, tsk, if you want to do rec.movies.critique.negative go to the appropriate newsgroup. The book's author, Davis Grubb had a hard time with reality. PCTAs have a hard time with reality also... :-) In one interview, he said that he could remember that whenever an execution took place at the prison in Moundsville, the lights all over town would dim. No doubt the electricity was wired in by an "A-1 Operator." That would have been something since, when Grubb was living in Moundsville, executions were by hanging. Electrocution wasn't begun until the 1950's. Difficulty in carrying out Ohm's Law? :-) Slow going through the CIRCUIT Court of Appeals? :-) Did they ever catch him, or is he still running around the hills of Moundsville? Was he a ham preacher? He is apparently of the undead, this time inhabiting the corpus of a corpulent K8 ham? You've really not watched the movie in some time. Tsk, I just asked a question. True, I don't make it a habit to watch creepy black-and-white movies about deranged characters. It is much easier to access RRAP and watch all the creepy black-and-white PCTAs pontificate, postulate, and pustulate all over everyone else. PCTAs are as deranged as could be. Another of Grubb's books was turned into a movie called "Fool's Parade" with James Stewart, George Kennedy and Kurt Russell. No doubt you have a well-thumbed Leonard Maltin movie guidebook from which to draw your wealth of old motion picture factoids. Somehow that doesn't qualify you as an "A-1 Op" in a cinema. It was shot on location in Moundsville and Marshall County in 1970. Did that factoid make it into Variety or Hollywood Reporter? :-) Was it in QST? You'd have been a natural "Fool's Parade" extra. No. I don't have a SEG membership. Wanna see my AFTRA card? "Corp diem?" "Corpus" Tsk, tsk, a blank-and-white literalist. Colorless. I was making a Play on Words between Latin and English. Since you only claim expertise on Hunnish, you couldn't understand it. You didn't understand the Latin oxymoron "primus inter pares" so it is useless to get you to unbend your dictatorial Prussian persistence in puling orders. Don't you get anything right? I'm not an unbending blank-and-white ultra-conservative RIGHTIST. Reality requires recognizing shades of gray and being liberal towards others. You fail there. Corporations have paid me real money to "get things right" and I have, consistently. Since you see things only by your dictatorial blank-and-white Prussian puerility, there is no point in trying to discuss any matter with you. I'm sure you would give both Ebert and Roeper a "thumbs down" when it comes to movie reviews. However, THAT doesn't make you an "A-1 Op." Doesn't even make you good for A-1 Sauce. ...and a "Bone apetit" to Kathy Reichs and Tempe Brennan. bit bit |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 5:10 pm What it does is to make you look like an out-of-control three-year-old who's badly in need of a time-out. Jimmie boy, go play with your radio toys and quit antagonizing the grown-ups here. That's nice of you to look after the adults here, Leonard. Do they ever complain about your behavior? YOU do not do a good impersonation of an adult. You have decades on him, Len. Your own impersonation could use some work. Dave K8MN |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
From: on Dec 18, 10:54 am
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am wrote: From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message [getting to be a long thread...:-)] The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio license. You haven't taken the first step on that path. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose. Lao Tzu. Any relation to Zack Lao? ...about as much as "Ed Hair." :-) I found some Chinese proverbs which seem quite fitting to your role he "A crane is too obvious when it stands among a flock of chickens and looks very awkward. It is also true with a camel amidst a flock of sheep and a flea when it stands on top of a hairless head. They all carry a pejoritary tone: the thing that outstands others is something awkward if not necessarily bad." You are the crane, the camel or the flea. You are the chicken, the sheep or the hairless head? Depends on which Chinese restaurant he went to and what fortune cookie he opened. "There is an argument between a bird who stopped to drank at a well and a frog therein. They were arguing about how the sky looked like. Regarding where they were, they each had a different view. The frog's vision was of course very limited. Therefore, this proverb refers to somebody who has a very narrow-minded and insulated view of what they see or what they think." You are the frog. The frog gives the bird. I hope Davie enjoys eating the bird. I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago. First Class, one test, no repeats necessary. Yeah? So? One exam to run a 100,000 watt transmitter? What would Jim say? Jimmie will no doubt say something making little sense...:-) WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license? Who ever told you that it was? It isn't, but the way you and Jim needle Len about getting one... Not good, Brian. They will DEMAND we all "produce the proof that they ever wrote something remotely like that"...even though they did. Was it necessary to punish amateurs? Who was "punished"? You tell us. You are the one into the dominatrix role. No, *you* need to tell us. You wrote of amateur radio ops being punished over incentive licensing. Back up your claim. I asked about amateurs being punished. Jim said he lost privileges. He was no longer in the privileged class. Davie gets very confused when confronted, becomes hostile and accuses everyone of perfidy. :-) Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of "changes of 1968 or 1969." That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio license. "Ana amateur radio license?" Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative to get an amateur radio license. Hypocrite. No one has told you anything of the kind. That's another of your factual errors. Then we will hear no more from you and Jim about Len not having one, right? Ho, ho, ho! Do NOT bet on that! :-) But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't going to get... "Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU? Why, *you* said it. Why did he say it? Davie needs to go into Google search and find the EXACT quote in the EXACT CONTEXT to "prove" his accusations. :-) I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio license eliminated. That's at least the third version you've told here. Previously, you've waffled between the other two--that you were going to get the "Extra right out of the box or that you weren't going to obtain an amateur radio license. Can't a person want more than one thing? Is Dave putting limits on what people can want? Davie seems to be DICTATING everything about everyone else. Sort of an amateur Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts? I keep telling him his jackboots are on too tight and his monocle is in the wrong eye, but Davie never listens...he just keeps giving Kommands in his best Prussian manner. Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1 deletion? Doing what? That voodoo that you do. Davie loves throwing **** on people who disagree with him. :-) What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status, title, and privileges? What are you afraid of, Len? That radio amateurs won't show you the respect which you feel is your due? That has certainly been the case on rrap. ? Heh heh heh...if I was "afraid" of anything, I would have ceased accessing this morseblog long ago. :-) That you won't get into amateur radio before you're past your expiration date? Len has an expiration date? What is it? It isn't imprinted on my hide in purple ink of the FDA...such as hams are marked. :-) What the heck, I'd already started 15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any amateur activity. How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing. The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to wage war and kill the enemy. Did you wage war or kill an enemy? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. That's just the way it was... The military "field days" were not little outings in a park once a year. Did you ever participate in a military "field day"? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. That's just the way it was... Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby. Did you operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. Actually I did, but that's just the way it was... What did Jim do? Did he excuse himelf? Was he unfit to serve? Jimmie got Mother Superior to send a note to the DoD to excuse him? And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else..... To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!" Then I suppose you're disappointed that you're efforts toward proving it have fallen a little short. One hundred seventy five miles uphill both ways to the FCC examiners office. In the snow. Jimmie is one of those Monty Python sissies who think that manly outbursts are "just horrid!" Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home. Really? How tough was the rear area life in Japan, Len? I don't recall my military service as having been very TOUGH. Must have been why you got out so quickly. Davie FOUGHT THE ENEMY IN SE ASIA with his trusty USAF MARS rig? What's with your schtick here, Leonard? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that all MUST agree with YOUR opinions. It would be nice that once someone rejects an opinion that they say why. Saying that Len doesn't hold an amateur license is not a good reason to reject Len's opinions wrt the ARS. Brian, give Davie some slack. That's about all he can come up with...personal insults and depredations. Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over and above any other mode. All are optional. Well now! Yessir, that presents a real dilemma, doesn't it. You should be able to suck it up. After all, your military service was way TOUGHER than this easy civilian stuff. The regulations don't even define Morse Code let alone Farnsworth Code, but the FCC can deny a license based upon an exam it can't define. True enough, Brian, but notice how Davie handles my statement. I repeated the long-term fact of the FCC *NOT* mandating code use over and above any other mode, yet retaining the license test for morse code even though all allocated modes are optional. That in itself would be sufficient cause to either eliminate the morse code test or make all amateur licensees use morse code over and above any other mode. Davie just said "suck it up." Rather than discuss law and regulations, he just goes for the personal denigrations schtick. Standard Heil procedure. Can't answer the questions, eh? Jimmie, you present NO valid questions. Ergo, no valid answers required. The questions were valid enough. You just didn't answer them. Why don't you answer them, Dave? He can't. Your tales precede your manufacturer of the term "Dudly the Imposter" by quite some time. "manufacture" "manure" "Dudley" was the pseudonym of the character described by writer Ernest K. Gann in his autobiographical book "Fate is the Hunter." The parallels to the one using "K4YZ" are so remarkably similar that I just changed "Dudley" to "Dudly." Imposters are imposters. That's just the way it is... That's funny. Jim knows what I've done in professional communications and I've seen no indication that he has ever become upset over it. Then again, I've never made it seem that what I did professionally carried any weight in amateur radio. Your "career" was your DXpedition meal ticket. Especially as the ONLY amateur radio licensee in the big nation of Guinea-Bisseau. :-) For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw... Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight the War on Terror? Bon voyage. Maybe they can just show up on r.r.a.p, read your posts and begin waging the War on Error. Yes, especially against the one who, on December 10, wrote: "FCC doesn't license radio amateurs." Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up. Did you miss seeing the parallel to your actions in regard to amateur radio? It was quite evident. Amateur radio regulations are a subset of "RADIO REGULATIONS." NOT about local city zoning ordinances. Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O port? One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots of things. Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military veterans. YOU have NEVER been an military veteran. I'm a military veteran. You've told me lots of things. I take offense to some of them. Ditto. Brian, the difference between you and Heil is that Heil is OFFENSIVE to just about everyone, regardless of his "veteranism." :-) Maybe that is just Delayed Stress Syndrome as a result of all that "in-country" fighting with MARS rigs? Any lessons of "diplomacy" learned in all that Department of State service seem to have evaporated. Or being away from the USA in all that "foreign service" did something else? Difficult to ascertain. Happy Christmas |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm "Bill Sohl" wrote in message Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests, the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so. Wow! Someone should have TOLD the U.S. Army Signal Corps folks at Evans Signal Laboratory in 1946 when they were the first to bounce a radio signal off the moon! How much power was used by the Army? The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced 3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to 1000Ts. 3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W input. The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input. How large was the antenna? 64 dipoles in front of a plane reflector. At least 24 dB gain over isotropic. There's a lot more info at: http://www.campevans.com/diana.html btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system. The mode used was OOK CW. The echoes were heard as beeps. Had there been a second station, communication could have been done by Morse Code. But no Morse Code was used because no communication was done. There was no second station to communicate with. Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at at least 13 wpm: Lt. Col John H. DeWitt, officer-in-charge, W4ERI, ex-W4FU E.K. Stodola, head of the lab's Research Section, W3IVF F. Elacker, Mechanical Engineer, ex-W2DMD H.P.Kaufmann, W2OQU was also involved at a high level. Those are just the hams I know of that were involved. There were probably more. Note that a good number of the top people were radio amateurs. They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the time, and an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots of resources. Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea, which he first began working on in 1940. Hams are now doing moonbounce wherein one of the stations is using a modest 50 MHz yagi and 100w or so. A few years back, a couple of hams (both code-tested, at least one an Extra) did microwave EME with less than 100 W and dishes less than 10 feet in diameter - at both ends. Using their own resources. Yeah, they should have told the Signal Corps "how to do it" in Korea in the 1950s when they set out all that VHF radio relay equipment in the hills and valleys there. Where WAS the ARRL when all that was going on? They didn't tell the Signal Corps much of anything... Where Worked All States? During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end. The ARRL actually produced a special "Defense Edition" Handbook for training purposes. There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm "Bill Sohl" wrote in message Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests, the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so. Wow! Someone should have TOLD the U.S. Army Signal Corps folks at Evans Signal Laboratory in 1946 when they were the first to bounce a radio signal off the moon! How much power was used by the Army? The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced 3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to 1000Ts. 3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W input. The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input. Was RADAR a legal mode? What was the PRF? How large was the antenna? 64 dipoles in front of a plane reflector. At least 24 dB gain over isotropic. There's a lot more info at: http://www.campevans.com/diana.html btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system. The mode used was OOK CW. The echoes were heard as beeps. Had there been a second station, communication could have been done by Morse Code. But no Morse Code was used because no communication was done. There was no second station to communicate with. Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at at least 13 wpm: Conditionals or FCC tested? Lt. Col John H. DeWitt, officer-in-charge, W4ERI, ex-W4FU FU suffix, huh? I'm suprised the fCC let that one through. E.K. Stodola, head of the lab's Research Section, W3IVF F. Elacker, Mechanical Engineer, ex-W2DMD H.P.Kaufmann, W2OQU was also involved at a high level. Those are just the hams I know of that were involved. There were probably more. There always are. Note that a good number of the top people were radio amateurs. They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the time, and an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots of resources. A fantastic use of post-war resources. Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea, which he first began working on in 1940. What idea? To bounce a signal off of the moon for no communications purpose? Isn't that like bouncing a basketball off of a backboard with no intention of making a basket? Hams are now doing moonbounce wherein one of the stations is using a modest 50 MHz yagi and 100w or so. A few years back, a couple of hams (both code-tested, at least one an Extra) did microwave EME with less than 100 W and dishes less than 10 feet in diameter - at both ends. Using their own resources. Go Hams! Yeah, they should have told the Signal Corps "how to do it" in Korea in the 1950s when they set out all that VHF radio relay equipment in the hills and valleys there. Where WAS the ARRL when all that was going on? They didn't tell the Signal Corps much of anything... Where Worked All States? During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end. The ARRL actually produced a special "Defense Edition" Handbook for training purposes. There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam". 73 de Jim, N2EY A KG6, no doubt. BTW, I saw KG6DX listed in the CQWW. |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam". 73 de Jim, N2EY Where can I read that story? Or perhaps you could summarize here? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message [snip] Is that why the FCC gives ALL power priveleges to their ENTRY LEVEL LICENSEES? Entry level licensees do NOT have all power privileges. Technicians with code are an entry level license. On HF frequencies, they are limited to 200 watts output. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And 200 watts on VHF/UHF??? Hello, Dee? |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam". The "Ghost of Guam" was US Navy Radioman 1st Class George Tweed. He wasn't a ham. Was reputed to be laid up drunk in a house of horizontal refreshment when the Navy evacuated the island just ahead of the WW-II JA invasion so he missed his ride. Had to hide out in the jungle for a few years until the USN came back. In the book/movie "No Man is an Island" he comes off as a hero, but was in fact not popular with the locals, several of whom (including a native RC Priest) lost their lives for not revealing his whereabouts. After the war he skedaddled without so much as a thank-you. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am wrote: From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm wrote: From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am wrote in message The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio license. You haven't taken the first step on that path. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose. Lao Tzu. Any relation to Zack Lao? I found some Chinese proverbs which seem quite fitting to your role he "A crane is too obvious when it stands among a flock of chickens and looks very awkward. It is also true with a camel amidst a flock of sheep and a flea when it stands on top of a hairless head. They all carry a pejoritary tone: the thing that outstands others is something awkward if not necessarily bad." You are the crane, the camel or the flea. You are the chicken, the sheep or the hairless head? Thought you'd never ask! Amateur radio is the chicken, the sheep or the hairless head. "There is an argument between a bird who stopped to drank at a well and a frog therein. They were arguing about how the sky looked like. Regarding where they were, they each had a different view. The frog's vision was of course very limited. Therefore, this proverb refers to somebody who has a very narrow-minded and insulated view of what they see or what they think." You are the frog. The frog gives the bird. ....his view of the sky and the bird just grins 'cuz he knows that the sky is much larger. I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago. First Class, one test, no repeats necessary. Yeah? So? One exam to run a 100,000 watt transmitter? What would Jim say? Limited privileges. WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license? Who ever told you that it was? It isn't, but the way you and Jim needle Len about getting one... ....is unrelated to the fact. Was it necessary to punish amateurs? Who was "punished"? You tell us. You are the one into the dominatrix role. No, *you* need to tell us. You wrote of amateur radio ops being punished over incentive licensing. Back up your claim. I asked about amateurs being punished. Jim said he lost privileges. He was no longer in the privileged class. It effected me directly. I was not punished in any way. but you find a way to personalize it. The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time. They affected everyone after you as well. They did not affect you and they did not affect Len. You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine. Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of "changes of 1968 or 1969." That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio license. "Ana amateur radio license?" Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative to get an amateur radio license. Hypocrite. No one has told you anything of the kind. That's another of your factual errors. Then we will hear no more from you and Jim about Len not having one, right? I wouldn't bank on it. But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't going to get... "Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU? Why, *you* said it. Why did he say it? Why not ask him? I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio license eliminated. That's at least the third version you've told here. Previously, you've waffled between the other two--that you were going to get the "Extra right out of the box or that you weren't going to obtain an amateur radio license. Can't a person want more than one thing? Is Dave putting limits on what people can want? He could have gotten away with it until recently. It is difficult to talk out of three sides of your mouth, so that's going to slow him up. Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1 deletion? Doing what? That voodoo that you do. Len certainly never gets more than he has delivered and he receives far less that he has earned. What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status, title, and privileges? What are you afraid of, Len? That radio amateurs won't show you the respect which you feel is your due? That has certainly been the case on rrap. That Len feels that he is owed some respect for his past military radio days or his professional radio work? Life is tough all over. That you won't get into amateur radio before you're past your expiration date? Len has an expiration date? What is it? We may or may not ever know. If his postings stop suddenly, that may be a clue. What the heck, I'd already started 15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any amateur activity. How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing. The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to wage war and kill the enemy. Did you wage war or kill an enemy? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. "Combatants" He put himself in the pool? Do you write for the DNC? I did didn't ask anything about whether he put himself in a pool. The military "field days" were not little outings in a park once a year. Did you ever participate in a military "field day"? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. "Combatants" I didn't ask anything about putting himself in a pool. Actually he put himself into the U.S. Army, some members of which were combatants. Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby. Did you operate in an environment of high explosive ordinance going off nearby? He put himself in the pool of combattants. After that he followed orders. "Combatants" I don't believe that Len was ever a combatant. He was a soldier. What did Jim do? Did he excuse himelf? Was he unfit to serve? Why are you asking me? And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else..... To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!" Then I suppose you're disappointed that you're efforts toward proving it have fallen a little short. One hundred seventy five miles uphill both ways to the FCC examiners office. In the snow. All civilians went to the FCC examiners to be tested? Really? Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home. Really? How tough was the rear area life in Japan, Len? I don't recall my military service as having been very TOUGH. Must have been why you got out so quickly. I gave four years of my life. Is that enough to suit you? Is it okay that I moved on to other things that I wanted to do? Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want to get into amateur radio. Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently. That doesn't mean I must agree with them. Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree with YOUR opinions? What's with your schtick here, Leonard? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that all MUST agree with YOUR opinions. It would be nice that once someone rejects an opinion that they say why. Those have been provided often. Haven't you been reading along? Saying that Len doesn't hold an amateur license is not a good reason to reject Len's opinions wrt the ARS. Len has no background or experience to make him a credible source of what is good or bad for amateur radio. If I'm looking for information on sailing, I don't seek it from a guy who has some friends who own sailboats. There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no problem. Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over and above any other mode. All are optional. Well now! Yessir, that presents a real dilemma, doesn't it. You should be able to suck it up. After all, your military service was way TOUGHER than this easy civilian stuff. The regulations don't even define Morse Code let alone Farnsworth Code, but the FCC can deny a license based upon an exam it can't define. See, Brian, civilian life can be tough indeed. The Army told Len what it wanted, how it wanted it done and how long it expected him to work at it each day. It told him where and when to show up for meals and showed him where his bed was. There was nobody shooting at him. I suppose he could have suffered a hangnail or he could have spilled hot coffee in his lap. Yet this grizzled veteran has told us all about his irrelevant (to amateur radio) stories of his "big time" radio work in the military on countless occasions. Sorry, I liked K0HB's story of SUQ a lot better. It entertains and it doesn't rankle. There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the morse code testing for a license issue. Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test. Jimmie Noserve, GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do." You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME nor judgemental on "what I will do." We can only go by what you've written, Len. You've written that you contacted out of band Frenchmen on 6m. I surely did write that. I've never written that I was out of band working French or any other stations anywhere, any time. Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on 13.976? And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen. Jimmie with newsgroup wordplay again. About this point, Hans will jump in saying you are "simply mistaken" and babbling about how the "IARU and ITU" are different or other semi-sweet non-sequitur. Can't answer the questions, eh? Jimmie, you present NO valid questions. Ergo, no valid answers required. The questions were valid enough. You just didn't answer them. Why don't you answer them, Dave? I'll wait for Len's answers. You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't apply to anything NOW.... Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion" concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the Imposter (aka "K4YZ"). Your tales precede your manufacturer of the term "Dudly the Imposter" by quite some time. "manufacture" Thank you. I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done by morse code mode since 1948...for the reason being that I was assigned at a major Army communications station serving a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years. YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that. In fact, YOU have NEVER served in any military service of the USA. Naturally you would be upset about anyone else doing something big and important in HF communications. TS. That's funny. Jim knows what I've done in professional communications and I've seen no indication that he has ever become upset over it. Then again, I've never made it seem that what I did professionally carried any weight in amateur radio. Your "career" was your DXpedition meal ticket. Why, so it was. I still found it necessary to do the assigned work. Do you have a problem with how I used my free time? For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw... Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight the War on Terror? Bon voyage. Maybe they can just show up on r.r.a.p, read your posts and begin waging the War on Error. Steve's gonna hate a bunch of usurpers showing up here. No way he's gonna let them edge him out. And so the war escalates. Do you mean that the error team will just busy itself with intended and unintended mistakes? The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change your house in any way, right? Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up. Did you miss seeing the parallel to your actions in regard to amateur radio? It was quite evident. Amateur radio regulations are a subset of "RADIO REGULATIONS." Wow! That point nearly hit you in the noggin as it zoomed right over you. Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O port? One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots of things. Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military veterans. YOU have NEVER been an military veteran. I'm a military veteran. You've told me lots of things. I take offense to some of them. Ditto. Len's been pulling the same thing with you? Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!" That will take care of Saturday night for you... You certainly write like a fellow who has lost an argument. Maybe if he refreshes the screen... ....or if he regains his composure. Dave K8MN |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam". 73 de Jim, N2EY Where can I read that story? Or perhaps you could summarize here? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE W/O George Tweed, USN, RM1c. Also KB6GJX. He was left behind on Guam and eluded capture by the Japanese for 31 months, until the island was retaken by American forces. He was aided and kept from capture by the efforts of the Chamoru (Guamanians), who hid him, kept him supplied, and would not give him up despite large rewards offered by the Japanese occupiers. The Japanese tortured and executed many Chamoru inhabitants, including a Roman Catholic priest, on the suspicion that they had information on Tweed. But the they never gave Tweed up. One version of the story may be read and seen in the book and film "No Man Is An Island". I have read that Tweed is not fondly remembered on Guam. Postwar accounts tended to portray him as a lone heroic figure, and to downplay or even ignore the terrible price paid by those who helped him. The radio connection to all this is that while Tweed was hiding from the Japanese, he built and operated several receivers, and was able to give the Chamoru accurate war news. He even wrote a small newspaper to circulate the news. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
|
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam". The "Ghost of Guam" was US Navy Radioman 1st Class George Tweed. He wasn't a ham. Was reputed to be laid up drunk in a house of horizontal refreshment when the Navy evacuated the island just ahead of the WW-II JA invasion so he missed his ride. Had to hide out in the jungle for a few years until the USN came back. In the book/movie "No Man is an Island" he comes off as a hero, but was in fact not popular with the locals, several of whom (including a native RC Priest) lost their lives for not revealing his whereabouts. After the war he skedaddled without so much as a thank-you. 73, de Hans, K0HB He was at the Legion Christmas party and personally thanked you and everyone else. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com