Ham radio's downward trend
T.L. Bryant
ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think that they're
doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one individual
group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well as
teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They walk into a
CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and complain
because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some obscure band from
San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist mindset are
very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the people
involved. Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's philosophy, as no
one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into general
assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in club
meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the internet. My
idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing many
different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent exchange of
information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact) However,
that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen. Some will even say
that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as outlined in Part
97.1. These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that amateur radio has
become stagnant.
But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who have
nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
problems, and the weather.
Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't going to
save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham radio.
Only a change of attitude will save ham radio. Until a redefining of the basis
and purpose happens, and until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal of
the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue to grow, and
interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the dead
languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common use.
Tom - N8ECW
Steve Robeson
>From: tlbr...@my-deja.com (T.L. Bryant)
>Date: 05/22/2000 3:24 PM Central Daylight Time
>The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers to
ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.<
Another trolling post made by someone who doesn't have all the facts. And
I add probably wasn't at Dayton.
>Third, it turns the group into general assholes, making them snobby,
confrontatinal, and unlikeable.<
And then it COULD be thier parents don't want them associating with people
who freely use profanity in a newsgroup that allegedly targets Amatuer Radio
operators, a subset of which are people under the age of 18.
>I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio.<
And YOU have done WHAT to change this enviroment?
>Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't going
to save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham radio.
Only a change of attitude will save ham radio.<
CQ and QST both have gone out of thier way to create "new" attitudes about
Amatuer Radio, both in policy, market targeting and appearence.
ARRL has specifically targeted programs at the grade school and middle
school markets to get them involved in Amatuer Radio, including participating
in projects like SAREX, etc.
Steve, K4YZ
Aaron Jones
>"Why are there no *young* newcomers to
>ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
I don't think so. If that were the case, they would be dropping out *after*
getting the license and going on the air (to be allegedly snubbed). The real
reason is that there are many more technical activities these days for
teenagers that don't require any code or license. If there was an Internet
and computers in 1957 when I was a teenager, I likely wouldn't be a ham
today...
>The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who have
>nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
>problems, and the weather.
The elite person you complain about might think he was better than these old
hams. He might write a post complaining about their physical looks, their
race, and their on the air content...
Larry W4CSC
Larry.....hee hee....
On 22 May 2000 20:24:48 GMT, tlbr...@my-deja.com (T.L. Bryant) wrote:
>The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers to
>ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
>The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think that they're
>doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one individual
>group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well as
>teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They walk into a
>CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and complain
>because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some obscure band from
>San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
>
>This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist mindset are
>very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the people
>involved. Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's philosophy, as no
>one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into general
>assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
>
>I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in club
>meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the internet. My
>idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing many
>different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent exchange of
>information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact) However,
>that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen. Some will even say
>that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as outlined in Part
>97.1. These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that amateur radio has
>become stagnant.
>But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who have
>nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
>problems, and the weather.
>
>
>Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't going to
>save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham radio.
radi...@mindspring.com
superiority complex? If so I don't see it as the force driving youngsters
away from ham radio.
Think of it this way. If there were no Internet, what would be happening to
the personal communications industry? GROWTH on both CB and ham radio. In
other words I can try to rationalize the stagnation in ham radio by using
quite a lot of excuses but there is but one that's significant and just one
that will ultimately render this hobby spent. We're on it right now.
Who said, "There's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come?"
It's tough to admit but it looks as if computers are supplanting
transceivers; its time has come and it's just the beginning. Moreover once
it becomes more and more enticing to use voice communications online, then
ham radio will pack it in altogether and the FCC will be able to sell our
bands to the commercial interests they've had lined up for quite a while.
Is there a good point to all this? Most certainly. Whether one uses his
computer for just surfing the web or for that, plus reading of and posting
to newsgroups or just sending e-mail, IT BUILDS READING AND WRITING SKILLS
which is far more important to the overall health of this nation than is
yelling CQ into a mic.
Ham radio CAN BE a learning tool. A computer MUST BE. It's analogous to the
benefit of buying instead of renting a home. Renting provides receipts but
buying builds equity thanks to FORCED SAVINGS. A computer MUST make a person
more literate while ham radio might but it's highly unlikely when one takes
the BARF and Stump Jumpers into consideration. Duh.
AF2Y
----------
In article <8gc52...@enews1.newsguy.com>, tlbr...@my-deja.com (T.L.
Unknown
Johnny come lately I think. Get a life T.L.
Unclaimed Mysteries
T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> took another step toward USENET history
by writing in part:
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers
to
> ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
> The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think that
they're
> doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one
individual
> group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well as
> teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They walk
into a
> CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and complain
> because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some obscure band
from
> San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
D00d, BMM sucked out loud after their first album, making your argument
impotent.
> This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist
mindset are
> very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the people
> involved.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm
preaching to." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
> Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's philosophy, as no
> one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into general
> assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
Not true!
> I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in club
> meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the internet.
SHUT UP NAZI! Oops, sorry, reflex action.
> My
> idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing many
> different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent exchange of
> information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact)
However,
> that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen. Some will even
say
> that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as outlined in
Part
> 97.1. These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that amateur
radio has
> become stagnant.
97.1 does not prohibit these discussions. But talk about something the
least bit controversial, and the jammers will pile on. It's not just ham
radio. Intolerance of other views is on the upswing everywhere. I dare say
that if cancelling others' usenet posts was easier, most messages would
never appear. It's an attitude of "you're not just wrong, but evil." After a
while, fatigue sets in and people don't care. Hayul, the 3945 bunch gets
jammed when they mostly talk about RADIO!
> But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who
have
> nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
> problems, and the weather.
>
Old. Obese. White. Male. Hey, where's the love?
>
> Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't
going to
> save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham
radio.
> Only a change of attitude will save ham radio.
Donating an FT-1000 to Unclaimed Mysteries is good first step, IMHO.
> Until a redefining of the basis
> and purpose happens, and until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal
of
> the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue to
grow, and
> interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the dead
> languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common use.
There is no need for a 100% overlap between the net and amateur radio. I'm
frustrated with the stagnation too. But sometimes you just gotta make your
own fun. Heard 14.070 lately?
--
It came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/
Public school all the way, bay-bee. So much for "socialization."
W5LZ
Tom,
I think your original premis is incorrect. Ham radio
has never attracted a large percentage of the general
population. Percentage wise, the figures I've seen are
about the same as they were 10, 20, and 40 years ago. I
don't think it's time to panic yet.
'Doc
Aaron Jones
>ham radio will pack it in altogether
I doubt that the Internet (or the computer) will ever eliminate ham radio.
After all there are many other hobbies that also use old technologies and
are still very popular. But I think the ham growth rate of the past will be
hard to sustain, if it even can be sustained...
zincplaterubberant
"T.L. Bryant" <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gc52...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers
to
> ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
> The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think that
they're
> doing something "better" than someone else.
While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
It is, of course, too late to reverse this trend. Even if code was
eliminated
tomorrow for all licence classes regardless, you would not pry the 15-22
year old (male) crowd away from technology like the Internet. I asked a
17 year old once if he knew what ham radio was? He said that "his
grandfather
had radio stuff in the basement when he was a kid" When I asked him if he
was interested in it, he said: "..nahh, that radio stuff is boring and it's
full of old
men who put you to sleep". (I conducted this interview in 1999 at a computer
show)
I rest my case. Ham Radio - R.I.P.
> Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't
going to
> save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham
radio.
> Only a change of attitude will save ham radio. Until a redefining of the
basis
> and purpose happens, and until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal
of
> the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue to
grow, and
> interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the dead
> languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common use.
>
> Tom - N8ECW
Be carefull Tom! Remember - the last guy who spoke the truth got
nailed up on a piece of wood by the "elitist" mindset of "his" day!
David J. Windisch
writes like this:
*********************************************************************8
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers
to
> ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>it turns the group into general
>assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
>
> group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well as
> teenagers who think they're "alternative". My
> idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing many
> different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent exchange of
> information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact)
> But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who
have
> nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
> problems, and the weather.
>
>
> until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal of
> the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue to
grow, and
> interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the dead
> languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common use.
>
> The elite person you complain about might think he was better than these
old
hams. He might write a post complaining about their physical looks, their
race, and their on the air content...
>Is this like the Clintons in the White House??
>. A computer MUST make a person
>more literate while ham radio might but it's highly unlikely when one takes
>the BARF and Stump Jumpers into consideration. Duh.
>Johnny come lately I think. Get a life T.L.
>SHUT UP NAZI! Oops, sorry, reflex action.
>Donating an FT-1000 to Unclaimed Mysteries is good first step, IMHO.
>the greater
>reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
>mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
>are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
******************************************************************
K3BHJ.
David J. Windisch
"David J. Windisch" <dav...@copper.net> wrote in message news:...
> Why would *any one* want to join a group in which part of the membership
> writes about itself like this:
>
> *********************************************************************8
>
> > The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young*
newcomers
> to
> > ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist mindset
are
>very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the people
>involved
>
Kim W5TIT
in similar manner? Hey, let's take that to an ultimate: why would anyone
want to live in a country where ________________________ (you fill in the
blank).
Good grief.
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"David J. Windisch" <dav...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:GzsW4.453$S14....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Why would any one want to join a group in which part of the membership
> writes like this:
>
> *********************************************************************8
>
> > The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young*
newcomers
> to
> > ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
General Mark Morgan
class of privileges. Sane as eliminating the call areas. No more
do you have to change your call so a W4 could be in 4 land or
anywhere else in the country. Can't tell anymore. And the vanity
calls. What a crock. That really shows 'elitism'(ex: W5TIT).
"T.L. Bryant" wrote:
>
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers to
> ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
> The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think that they're
> doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one individual
> group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well as
> teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They walk into a
> CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and complain
> because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some obscure band from
> San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
>
> This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist mindset are
> very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the people
> involved. Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's philosophy, as no
> one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into general
> assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
>
> I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in club
> meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the internet. My
> idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing many
> different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent exchange of
> information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact) However,
> that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen. Some will even say
> that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as outlined in Part
> 97.1. These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that amateur radio has
> become stagnant.
> But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who have
> nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
> problems, and the weather.
>
> Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't going to
> save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham radio.
> Only a change of attitude will save ham radio. Until a redefining of the basis
> and purpose happens, and until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal of
> the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue to grow, and
> interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the dead
> languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common use.
>
> Tom - N8ECW
Kim W5TIT
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"General Mark Morgan" <one.big...@ahole.com> wrote in message
news:392A9243...@ahole.com...
Meg A Hertz
>more important to the overall health of this nation than is
>yelling CQ into a mic.
Yes but while the current state of the internet is mostly type-
and-read, it is moving towards speech output, speech recognition
for control etc.
So it'll end up with the youngsters not yelling CQ into a rig's
mic but some other more modern words into the PC's mic. Wow.
"virtual ham radio" could replace ham radio OPERATING itself -
imagine a piccy of a rig on your PC screen, you'll
hear "stations" by tuning the "frequency" on the readout... let
your imagination run riot!
Ham radio will be left to those who see the magic in the real
thing, and experimenters. Maybe that's a good thing?!
*MegHz*
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dwight Stewart
General Mark Morgan wrote:
>
> And the FCC started the "elitism'
> by issuing calls specific to the
> class of privileges. Sane as
> eliminating the call areas. No more
> do you have to change your call so
> a W4 could be in 4 land or anywhere
> else in the country. Can't tell
> anymore. And the vanity calls.
> What a crock. That really shows
> 'elitism'(ex: W5TIT).
How does a vanity callsign show "elitism?" I've looked at every
definition of the word and found nothing that could even remotely relate
to a vanity callsign.
In my dictionary, "elitism" refers to a "practice or belief in rule by
an elite." What does the choice of a callsign have to do with a
"practice or belief" in rule by anybody? And I just thought I was
picking a callsign that I liked.
By the way (and I may regret asking), what kind of general are you?
Now, if we're talking about elitism, let me point out that the military
rank system is entirely based on it. And anyone that would go around in
a computer newsgroup using a dubious military title, such as yours, is
obsessed with their self-proclaimed elite status, and therefore obsessed
with a system of elitism.
In other words, general, don't be so quick to cast the first stone.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
General Mark Morgan
T.L. Bryant
>>The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers to
>ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.<
>
> Another trolling post made by someone who doesn't have all the facts.
And
>I add probably wasn't at Dayton.
You're wrong. I was at Dayton this year. Read my post on "Dayton Bargains" in
rec.radio.amateur.misc.
>>Third, it turns the group into general assholes, making them snobby,
>confrontatinal, and unlikeable.<
>
> And then it COULD be thier parents don't want them associating with
people
>who freely use profanity in a newsgroup that allegedly targets Amatuer Radio
>operators, a subset of which are people under the age of 18.
>
Yeah, right. As if a person under the age of 18 has never heard that kind of
language. I've heard a lot worse on Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, and even the
evening news.
>>I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio.<
>
> And YOU have done WHAT to change this enviroment?
I taught a novice/tech class once about ten years ago. I was not invited to do
it again because I had the audacity to make the class fun. I was told that the
objective of the class was to help people pass the novice and/or tech license
test. Based on this objective, I taught simple memory techniques by which you
could remember every answer to every question in each pool. Everyone in the
class passed their novice AND tech tests. That was six people, two of which
aced the exams! I, however, did not come back to teach another class because
the powers that be felt I wasn't teach anything. But the objective stated to me
was to get people to pass the test, which is what I did.
So you see, I *have* tried to change this environnment, and I was stifeld in
the process.
>>Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't going
>to save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham
radio.
>Only a change of attitude will save ham radio.<
>
> CQ and QST both have gone out of thier way to create "new" attitudes
about
>Amatuer Radio, both in policy, market targeting and appearence.
>
> ARRL has specifically targeted programs at the grade school and middle
>school markets to get them involved in Amatuer Radio, including participating
>in projects like SAREX, etc.
>
>Steve, K4YZ
They should have thought of this 40 years ago. Today, I think it is to little,
to late.
Tom - N8ECW
W5LZ
General Mark,
You've finally said somthing that I can agree with
whole heartedly!
'Doc
Jeffrey Herman
General Mark Morgan <one.big...@ahole.com> wrote:
>And the FCC started the "elitism' by issuing calls specific to the
>class of privileges.
Would you believe they're now issuing three-character calls to
those who've been licensed for 25 years and have been nice, law-
abiding amateurs?
73, Jeff KH6
=:o
Mark Morgan
wrote:
>T.L. Bryant wrote
>>"Why are there no *young* newcomers to
>>ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
>I don't think so. If that were the case, they would be dropping out *after*
>getting the license and going on the air (to be allegedly snubbed). The real
>reason is that there are many more technical activities these days for
>teenagers that don't require any code or license. If there was an Internet
>and computers in 1957 when I was a teenager, I likely wouldn't be a ham
>today...
You logic has the flaw that most hams seem first to find (or
at least seek) help form say local clubs and encounter it there before
license. As far I can tell I am relitvely rare in getting my license
before any contact with local hams
>
>>The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who have
>>nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
>>problems, and the weather.
>
Mark Morgan
<one.big...@ahole.com> wrote:
>What kind of general am I, well I'm a general nuisance......
>
Ok I buy that a general nuisance but of course by admiting that sooner
you could have saved a lot of troublem but I guess that would be too
much to ask
General Mark Morgan
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> In article <392A9243...@ahole.com>,
> General Mark Morgan <one.big...@ahole.com> wrote:
Jeff Pierce
The real culprit is technical evolution. Back in the pre personal
computer days Ham Radio was the real ticket for technical hobbies. Now,
video games, i.e. Playstations, etc, computer and internet have
supplanted it. I was one of the first in NE Tenn to use packet (before
TNC2s, used Xerox 820s with Phil Karn's TNC program and home made
modems). It was really neat, sending E-mail and downloading programs via
ham radio. Now lets face it, it is in most cases impractical if the
Internet is available.
Personal com on the roads? Cell phones replaced that. I had intended for
my daughters to get no-code tech licenses as a part of their getting
drivers licenses. But, now why, unless they really want to? Cell phones
are given away along with low cost plans. Cheaper in the long run than
buying a couple of handhelds. Plus, really more practical as you aren't
limited to "ham only" com.
Ham Radio isn't the only activity effected by the the times. I Clifford
Stoll's book, "High Tech Heretic", he quotes a baseball scout as saying
that the reason that major league pitching is so scarce today is because
boys are in front of Playstations and computers instead of having a
"catch". I see it. In my preteen and teen years we always played a lot
of ball. Non-orginized. If the fields weren't being used by leagues,
kids were having "pick-up" games. In the summer fields were always in
use. Not any more. I drive by our local Ruritan fields all the time.
Very seldom is anybody on them. I helped coach. Most kids really didn't
get any better during the season. They rarely touch a ball except during
practice and games.
No, ham radio is just suffering the same as other activities in this new
"World Wide Web" times.
P.S. Get Stoll's two books, "Silicon Valley Snake Oil" and "High Tech
Heretic" from the library. Two excellent books that give food for
thought about computers in our society today. Stoll was the
astronomer/sys-op who caught the German hackers getting into military
systems about 15 years ago. Wrote "The Cuckoo's Egg", another good book,
about it. Plus a PBS Nova segment.
"T.L. Bryant" wrote:
>
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers to
> ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>>
> Tom - N8ECW
--
Jeff Pierce, wd4nmq
pie...@preferred.com
http://pages.preferred.com/~piercej
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> Would you believe they're now issuing three-character calls to
> those who've been licensed for 25 years and have been nice, law-
> abiding amateurs?
Not only that, a brand new ham, of any license class, can apply for and be
granted the use of one of those really elite 1X1 call signs.
Hmmm.... if is it available to everybody, is it still elite? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Dave Heil
>
> "T.L. Bryant" <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8gc52...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> to
> > ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
> >
> they're
> > doing something "better" than someone else.
>
> reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
> mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
> are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
> this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
> numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
There is an elite in each and every field of endeavor. There are people
who are very good at something, people are pretty average and a small
number of people who do it very poorly. The same is certainly true of
amateur radio.
You'll probably be frightened when you read the obituary column of your
local paper, Mr. Troll. People are dying at a good clip. America is
graying. Maybe you can find a way to blame the amateur radio morse exam
for that as well.
> It is, of course, too late to reverse this trend. Even if code was
> eliminated
> tomorrow for all licence classes regardless, you would not pry the 15-22
> year old (male) crowd away from technology like the Internet. I asked a
> 17 year old once if he knew what ham radio was? He said that "his
> grandfather
> had radio stuff in the basement when he was a kid" When I asked him if he
> was interested in it, he said: "..nahh, that radio stuff is boring and it's
> full of old
> men who put you to sleep". (I conducted this interview in 1999 at a computer
> show)
I had a supermarket clerk just a little older try to pass me a store
coupon a few years back. I thanked her and said, "No, I won't be here
to use it--I live in Finland." Her response was, "Is that like a
different country or something?" Your point was?
Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
zincplaterubberant
"Dave Heil" <K8...@cats-net.com> wrote in message
news:392BD213...@cats-net.com...
> I had a supermarket clerk just a little older try to pass me a store
> coupon a few years back. I thanked her and said, "No, I won't be here
> to use it--I live in Finland." Her response was, "Is that like a
> different country or something?" Your point was?
>
> Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Dave, I suggest you stick with marketing cheap tinny microphones and
"audio equalizers" to the same knucklheads who bought
into Tiny-Tennas and "cure-all" magnetic matress pads.
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>
>Would you believe they're now issuing three-character calls to
>those who've been licensed for 25 years and have been nice, law-
>abiding amateurs?
>
>73, Jeff KH6
>
Jeff:
I must be a nicer, more law-abiding ham to you!
73 de Larry, K3
Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT | FISTS nr. 2008; CC nr. 703
k3lt@ka3bdr.#cde.de.usa.noam | http://www.qrz.com/wrad/directory.cgi?K3LT
(302) 678-4841 | ARRL OBS - DE
Dan Finn
T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gc52...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers
to
> ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
>
> The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think that
they're
> doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one
individual
> group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well as
> teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They walk
into a
> CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and complain
> because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some obscure band
from
> San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
>
> This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist
mindset are
> very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the people
> involved. Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's philosophy, as
no
> one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into general
> assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
>
> I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in club
> meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the internet.
My
> idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing many
> different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent exchange of
> information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact)
However,
> that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen. Some will even
say
> that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as outlined in
Part
> 97.1. These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that amateur
radio has
> become stagnant.
> But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males who
have
> nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their health
> problems, and the weather.
>
>
> Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure isn't
going to
> save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham
radio.
Jon Johnson
>
> Dave, I suggest you stick with marketing cheap tinny microphones and
> "audio equalizers" to the same knucklheads who bought
> into Tiny-Tennas and "cure-all" magnetic matress pads.
You need to check prior posts on this NG. You've slammed the wrong
Heil.
Kim W5TIT
equipment man would wish to be....LOL
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Jon Johnson" <Jon.J...@Telocity.com> wrote in message
news:392D29CA...@Telocity.com...
Bill Sohl
wrote:
>radi...@mindspring.com wrote
>>ham radio will pack it in altogether
>
>I doubt that the Internet (or the computer) will ever eliminate ham radio.
Reminds me of the doom and gloom predictions that
slot car racing was going to end the interest in model
railroading. It didn't happen.
>After all there are many other hobbies that also use old technologies and
>are still very popular. But I think the ham growth rate of the past will be
>hard to sustain, if it even can be sustained...
The only constant in life is change itself.
Nothing is or can be static.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
<pie...@preferred.com> wrote:
>I personally believe that Tom's view is only true to a small point.
>The real culprit is technical evolution. Back in the pre personal
>computer days Ham Radio was the real ticket for technical hobbies. Now,
>video games, i.e. Playstations, etc, computer and internet have
>supplanted it. I was one of the first in NE Tenn to use packet (before
>TNC2s, used Xerox 820s with Phil Karn's TNC program and home made
>modems). It was really neat, sending E-mail and downloading programs via
>ham radio. Now lets face it, it is in most cases impractical if the
>Internet is available.
Additionally, the bulk of all technical equipmenttoday relies
far more on software than on the discrete circuitry that
it is composed of. Upgrades to equipment used in
telecommunications networks is usually related to improvements
in the software without significant change to any of
the hardware.
>Personal com on the roads? Cell phones replaced that. I had intended for
>my daughters to get no-code tech licenses as a part of their getting
>drivers licenses. But, now why, unless they really want to? Cell phones
>are given away along with low cost plans. Cheaper in the long run than
>buying a couple of handhelds. Plus, really more practical as you aren't
>limited to "ham only" com.
Agreed.
>Ham Radio isn't the only activity effected by the the times. I Clifford
>Stoll's book, "High Tech Heretic", he quotes a baseball scout as saying
>that the reason that major league pitching is so scarce today is because
>boys are in front of Playstations and computers instead of having a
>"catch". I see it. In my preteen and teen years we always played a lot
>of ball. Non-orginized. If the fields weren't being used by leagues,
>kids were having "pick-up" games. In the summer fields were always in
>use. Not any more. I drive by our local Ruritan fields all the time.
>Very seldom is anybody on them. I helped coach. Most kids really didn't
>get any better during the season. They rarely touch a ball except during
>practice and games.
Agree also.
>No, ham radio is just suffering the same as other activities in this new
>"World Wide Web" times.
And ham radio too will survive.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Dave Heil
>
> Definitely...I wonder how closely associated with Dave Heil, the Heil
> equipment man would wish to be....LOL
The "Heil equipment man" and I go way back. I did some illustrations
for his Heil Ham Radio Handbook a couple of decades back. My 40m
inverted vee phased array is also featured in the book.
His name is Bob Heil and his call is K9EID. Bob has stayed at my home
in the past and I've been visible at the Heil booth at Dayton some
years. I was among the early testers of Heil microphone equalizers and
Key Elements. I've been a user of the Heil headset/boom mic combos for
years. Bob and I last got together at the W9DXCC convention in Chicago
last September.
No, we're not related but we have been friends for about 25 years. Any
other questions, Kim?
Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
Larry Roll K3LT
(Bill Sohl) writes:
>
>Reminds me of the doom and gloom predictions that
>slot car racing was going to end the interest in model
>railroading. It didn't happen.
>
Bill:
Slot car racing -- that brings back old memories! My brothers and I
had a fairly impressive set up with both sizes of cars/track. I guess
slot racing has been pretty much displaced by R/C cars -- something
we didn't get into since we were bit R/C aircraft fliers, and thought
cars would have been a step down! Once ham radio implodes I'll
probably get back into R/C flying with a venegence! Most likely
R/C helicopters.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Past and future member, AMA (#63931)
Clay N4AOX
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:12:45 -0700, "Aaron Jones" <nom...@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
> slot car racing was going to end the interest in model
> railroading. It didn't happen.
>
> >are still very popular. But I think the ham growth rate of the past will be
> >hard to sustain, if it even can be sustained...
>
>
> Bill K2UNK
When national leaders of special interest groups in amateur radio like
NCI are reminded to compare the amateur radio service to strictly
self-serving hobbies like slotcar racing or model railroading, then the
demise of amateur radio is not far off. When amateur radio loses its
broad social value as an auxillary, not-for-profit, robust, message
handling system, a training ground for radio communication skills
education, a promoter of international good will, then it steps squarely
in harms way by the congressional budget cutters and frequency
auctioneers.
After all do you want your government spending any money on promoting or
protecting self-serving hobbies? There are (or at least were) some
socially redeeming hobbies that the ARS should better be compared to:
Bee Keeping, Earthworm Growing, Astronomy, Horticulture, Midnight
Basketball, etc.
73,
Clay N4AOX
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
"Dave Heil" <K8...@cats-net.com> wrote in message
news:392F07D2...@cats-net.com...
rdh...@my-deja.com
To true yes amateur radio has declined. Instead of moaning why not do
something worth while to stop the decline.
Over the past few year the ham world has been declining mostly because
of this...the internet. The great propaganda tool it holds loads of
information about hobbies that are not in the lime light all of the
time...amateur radio to name one.
I have registered the domain cq-radio and what I hope to do is to
create it in to a major library of information for new amateurs and
old ; somewhere where people can easily find information. There is the
basic layout of the site already up there and it shows what I hope to
offer on-line courses, etc. Please go and visit is and tell me what you
think.(sorry for the js error on line 110)
To make cq-radio in to a good site; I can not do this alone and what I
want is YOUR help. You don't need tobe a brilliant html programmer with
qualifications in java script. If you have some thing to offer then I
wanna hear from you...so please e-mail me on the below e-mail address.
Thanx help me to help the hobby
rdheath
m1 ekq
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Burt
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@interactive.net> wrote in message
news:392e71af...@news.interactive.net...
> >>ham radio will pack it in altogether
> >
> >I doubt that the Internet (or the computer) will ever eliminate ham
radio.
Ham radio has already been eliminated.
Please visit my World Wide Web Site, you have never seen a page like it. You
will see:
1. Access to oldies mp3 (albeit on an irregular basis)
2. Really interesting answering machine messages
3. A blond naked chic being held by a female ham!.
4. A guide to the best ham pages ever.
5. Hear Ted Kennedy really screw up in front of Clinton
6. Actually sounds of Bill Clinton "after the lov'in".
7. The writings of me and others on ham radio, hear a typical ham contact.
8. The warm side of K1OIK, hear me speak, see me with famous people.
9. An amazing card game that will shock others
10. Pictures of me and my family.
11. Did common German's enable the holocaust?
12. See now the future of ham radio.
13. How to pass the A+ Certification
Burt Fisher
A Plus Certified Teacher of video, broadcasting and electronics
Amateur call South Dennis, Ma. (Cape Cod)
K1OIK Bacteria-the only culture most hams have
Dave Heil
Yes, I am.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
T.L. Bryant
>When national leaders of special interest groups in amateur radio like
>NCI are reminded to compare the amateur radio service to strictly
>self-serving hobbies like slotcar racing or model railroading, then the
>demise of amateur radio is not far off. When amateur radio loses its
>broad social value as an auxillary, not-for-profit, robust, message
>handling system, a training ground for radio communication skills
>education, a promoter of international good will, then it steps squarely
>in harms way by the congressional budget cutters and frequency
>auctioneers.
>
>After all do you want your government spending any money on promoting or
>protecting self-serving hobbies? There are (or at least were) some
>socially redeeming hobbies that the ARS should better be compared to:
>Bee Keeping, Earthworm Growing, Astronomy, Horticulture, Midnight
>Basketball, etc.
>
>73,
>Clay N4AOX
Very well put. However, don't be so quick to blame NCI for the demise of amateur
radio. You could have put ARRL in place of NCI in your first sentence and it
would not have changed the meaning of the rest of your post.
Tom - N8ECW
T.L. Bryant
>
>Hi there,
>
>To true yes amateur radio has declined. Instead of moaning why not do
>something worth while to stop the decline.
<snip>
Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.
I taught a novice/tech class once. I was told that the objective was to get
people to pass the test. Based on this objective, I taught basic memory
techniques that were perfected by such experts as Harry Lorraine, Kevin
Trudeau, and Tony Buzan, and applied them to each question in the pool.
Everyone had fun, and everyone passed. I, however, was not invited to teach
again because it was decided by the powers-that-be that I really wasn't
"teaching" anything. This was despite the fact that the objective was to get
people to pass the test, which I acheived.
Tom - N8ECW
W6RCecilA
> Very well put. However, don't be so quick to blame NCI for the demise of amateur
> radio. You could have put ARRL in place of NCI in your first sentence and it
> would not have changed the meaning of the rest of your post.
Consider where ham radio would be today if the ARRL had never existed.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Kim W5TIT
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Burt" <k1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rrOX4.29967$Ft1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
rdh...@my-deja.com
i took my course before the exam it was made clear that they where not
going to teach me about radio...first i had to pass the exam and then
the radio club would teach me that. This is one of the main problems
people get in to radio to communicate to other but firstly the have to
learn the voltage of vbe of a forward biased transistor stuff they
don't really care about and probly will never use. And to often it is a
this point people turn away. Therefore adds more to the decline. There
needs to be a real change in the exam sylbus not just cutting the pass
mark.
What i want cq-radio to be is a site where people can have an on-line
course to pass the exam with most off the junk stuff cut out.
If you have tort the exam before r u intersed in developing a cousre
for us? it does not have to be in html or anything like that just a
basic text file will do and i will do the rest.
richard heath
M1EKQ
T.L. Bryant
You're right. The frequencies would probably have been put to better use by
now.
Tom - N8ECW
radi...@mindspring.com
memorize and not only gets away with it but makes a fortune besides. And
you're not invited back? Damn hypocrites. I'll bet 95% of U.S. hamdom got
tickets thanks to MEMORIZATION. Hell, they should have given you the Hiram
Percy Maxim Award if such a thing exists and furthermore they should have
given that old dude an award before he croaked for having gone through life
with the name Hiram Percy Maxim.
AF2Y
----------
In article <8goj2...@enews4.newsguy.com>, tlbr...@my-deja.com (T.L.
Brian Kelly
>How strange. Bash puts out books with the actual questions and answers to
>memorize and not only gets away with it but makes a fortune besides. And
>you're not invited back? Damn hypocrites. I'll bet 95% of U.S. hamdom got
>tickets thanks to MEMORIZATION.
>
Try "memorizing" 20 wpm to pass that test for an FCC Examiner.
>
w3rv
Jeff Pierce
>
>
> Consider where ham radio would be today if the ARRL had never existed.
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Yes, in the past the ARRL has been a much needed and member serving
organization. I became a member when I first became a ham in the 70's.
However, in just these last thirty years I have seens, in my eyes, it
become an orginization that now longer serviced the members, but
expected the members to service it. It now caters to the equipment
manufacturers for advertising dollars. My view is that it is a now a
publishing house that also lobby's for it's publishing's area of
interest on the side.
T.L. Bryant
>
>W6RCecilA wrote:
>>
>>
>> Consider where ham radio would be today if the ARRL had never existed.
>> --
>> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
>Yes, in the past the ARRL has been a much needed and member serving
>organization. I became a member when I first became a ham in the 70's.
>However, in just these last thirty years I have seens, in my eyes, it
>become an orginization that now longer serviced the members, but
>expected the members to service it. It now caters to the equipment
>manufacturers for advertising dollars. My view is that it is a now a
>publishing house that also lobby's for it's publishing's area of
>interest on the side.
>
>
>--
>Jeff Pierce, wd4nmq
>pie...@preferred.com
>http://pages.preferred.com/~piercej
Now you've done it! You've said that the ARRL is a publishing company, for
which Jeff Herman will post his tiresome essay on how it was founded as a
business/publishing company.
I'd personally take it a step further, to say that the ARRL has a monopoly on
the amateur radio publishing market. However, I doubt that the government will
go after them the way they have with Microsoft.
Tom - N8ECW
Jeffrey Herman
>Cecil....@IEEE.org says...
>>Consider where ham radio would be today if the ARRL had never existed.
>You're right. The frequencies would probably have been put to better use by
>now.
Tell us, Tom -- how would our HF frequencies be currently utilized if
there had been no ARRL? (Details, please; try to reply with more than
one line.)
T.L. Bryant
Simple. They'd be utilized by shortwave broadcast stations, and perhaps maybe
long range commercial stations.
It would be a helluva lot better than the mundane blather about the weather and
health problems, as well as the DXers and contesters that seem to have
overtaken the bands. Wallpaper chasers only serve themselves.
Tom - N8ECW
Jeffrey Herman
>My view is that it is a now a
>publishing house that also lobby's for it's publishing's area of
>interest on the side.
Well of course the League is a publishing house. On January 29, 1915, the
Connecticut Secretary of State recorded the incorporation of the League
under the following three articles:
"Article 1. The name of said corporation shall be The American Radio
Relay League Incorporated.
"Article 2. The purposes for which said corporation is formed are the
following to wit: The promotion of amateur radio, the organization of
amateur radio stations, the promotion and regulation of amateur radio
inter-communication, and the relaying of messages from station to station,
and the printing and publishing of documents, books and pamphlets
necessary to any of the above purposes.
"Article 3. The said corporation is located in the town of Hartford
and the State of Connecticut."
Lucky for us that second article includes printing and publishing:
We participate in a self-taught technical hobby/service; not a day should
go by without us gaining new knowledge WRT to electronics. The only
publications I have always been able to turn to when questions arose which
needed immediate answers were the League's pubs.
For some 85 years the ARRL has produced a handbook written so that even
a novice can learn and understand from it. The government thought so
highly of the Handbook that it was used to train military communicators
during WWII. For the longest period, the Handbook was the greatest selling
technical book ever published, in and out of ham radio, according to Time
Magazine.
During the 50s when SSB was finding its way into ham radio, there was no
pub one could turn to to learn about this new mode except the League's SSB
Manual. Also during that decade the FCC relaxed the regs regarding mobile
operation - no one else published a mobile manual except the League
(1955).
To whom could you turn to for the great ideas and techniques that appear
in the Hints and Kinks booklets? Propagation and antennas: The Antenna
Manual. Who else in the 60s produced a VHF Manual? And when that VHF
crowd began exploring FM: The FM and Repeater Manual. The very first
book in the 80s devoted to amateur digital comms was the League's Get
Connected.
Publishing affordable technical books was one of the original goals in the
League's charter; for 85 years they've made information available to the
layman that was nearly impossible to find elsewhere. How in the world
could you possibly find fault with this business side of the League?
Every ham shack I've ever visited in the last 30 years has had many
League pubs on its bookshelves. We are (or at least were) a group with
a voracious appetite for reading and learning. Luckily, the League has
been able to feed us what we most desired.
Ham radio and reading are inseparable; and it takes a business to do
what the League has accomplished.
73, Jeff KH6O
Jeffrey Herman
>Now you've done it! You've said that the ARRL is a publishing company, for
>which Jeff Herman will post his tiresome essay on how it was founded as a
>business/publishing company.
Too late -- already sent. Glad to see you thoroughly study my compositions
and commit them to memory.
>I'd personally take it a step further, to say that the ARRL has a monopoly on
>the amateur radio publishing market. However, I doubt that the government will
>go after them the way they have with Microsoft.
You're apparently not very well read. Tab, 73, CQ -- each published dozens
of amateur-related books.
T.L. Bryant
>
>T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Now you've done it! You've said that the ARRL is a publishing company, for
>>which Jeff Herman will post his tiresome essay on how it was founded as a
>>business/publishing company.
>
>Too late -- already sent. Glad to see you thoroughly study my compositions
>and commit them to memory.
Be careful not to pull a muscle while patting yourself on the back.
>
>>I'd personally take it a step further, to say that the ARRL has a monopoly on
>>the amateur radio publishing market. However, I doubt that the government
will
>>go after them the way they have with Microsoft.
>
>You're apparently not very well read. Tab, 73, CQ -- each published dozens
>of amateur-related books.
Maybe at one time, but the last time I was at AES in Cleveland, about 80% of
the books were ARRL publications. Looks like a monopoly to me.
Tom - N8ECW
Robert Casey
T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8gpq72$bdn$1...@news.hawaii.edu>, jeff...@Hawaii.Edu says...
>>
>>T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>Cecil....@IEEE.org says...
>>
>>>>Consider where ham radio would be today if the ARRL had never existed.
>>
>>>You're right. The frequencies would probably have been put to better use by
>>>now.
>>
>>Tell us, Tom -- how would our HF frequencies be currently utilized if
>>there had been no ARRL? (Details, please; try to reply with more than
>>one line.)
>
>Simple. They'd be utilized by shortwave broadcast stations, and perhaps maybe
>long range commercial stations.
>
>It would be a helluva lot better than the mundane blather about the weather and
>health problems, as well as the DXers and contesters that seem to have
>overtaken the bands. Wallpaper chasers only serve themselves.
>
>Tom - N8ECW
>
Emergencies. When a disaster happens, enough hams usually survive
with equipment to provide emergency communications. And it doesn't
cost the govermment anything except spectrum.
Craig Gagner
with the Heli's that you offer for new Hams.
I am a rather acomplished RC Heli flyer, although I am a new no code ham,
and your attitude to the new hams I can only hope is reciprocated when you
attempt to fly RC Heli's.
Craig
Craig Gagner
yours to new comers.. Oh BTW if you dont learn to fly Heli's with no Gyro
and a standard 4 channel radio then you will never be as good as I am. There
how does that feel ?? Thats the way you come across to new tech no code
hams. I am quite accomplished with both fixed wing and heli's, been doing it
since 1987 and enjoy helping the new folks out as much as possible. Its
almost easy to learn heli's with piezo gyro's and computer radios.
Craig
>
> Slot car racing -- that brings back old memories! My brothers and I
> had a fairly impressive set up with both sizes of cars/track. I guess
> slot racing has been pretty much displaced by R/C cars -- something
> we didn't get into since we were bit R/C aircraft fliers, and thought
> cars would have been a step down! Once ham radio implodes I'll
> probably get back into R/C flying with a venegence! Most likely
> R/C helicopters.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
> Past and future member, AMA (#63931)
>
>
James Rosenthal
: Jeff Pierce <pie...@preferred.com> wrote:
[snip]
: During the 50s when SSB was finding its way into ham radio, there was no
: pub one could turn to to learn about this new mode except the League's SSB
: Manual.
"SSB" by Collins was rather "helpful" :)
We've been through this before and it is just not true. Is this just a
repost of your previous incorrect post? I have many publications on my
shelf printed in the 1950s about SSB and they are NOT by the ARRL.
SSB was done on audio in the 1920s. You really don't think that the ARRL
was the only one to publish information about it up to 1950+ do you?
; Also during that decade the FCC relaxed the regs regarding mobile
: operation - no one else published a mobile manual except the League
: (1955).
Again, this was disproven a few months ago. I have several "manuals"
written by RCA, CQ etc on mobile ham radio. Motorola did do a "little"
work with mobile rigs in the 1950s :)
: To whom could you turn to for the great ideas and techniques that appear
: in the Hints and Kinks booklets?
RCA "Ham Tips" for one. VHF magazine etc etc.
; Propagation and antennas: The Antenna Manual.
This was also covered by other publications.
: Who else in the 60s produced a VHF Manual?
"VHF Handbook" by Bill Orr and Mr. Johnson. "VHF for the Radio Amateur"
by Frank C. Jones are amoung the ones that I have.
; And when that VHF
: crowd began exploring FM: The FM and Repeater Manual. The very first
: book in the 80s devoted to amateur digital comms was the League's Get
: Connected. How in the world
: could you possibly find fault with this business side of the League?
I'm not finding fault, only your posting incorrect facts that they were
the -ONLY- one doing it.
: Publishing affordable technical books was one of the original goals in the
: League's charter; for 85 years they've made information available to the
: layman that was nearly impossible to find elsewhere.
Simply not true. All one had to do was either buy another publishing
house's (Cowan for one) books, or suscribe to (or pick up free at your
ham radio store) RCA's etc hint booklets. Public libraries have been known
to have books on various electrical subjects.
: Every ham shack I've ever visited in the last 30 years has had many
: League pubs on its bookshelves. We are (or at least were) a group with
: a voracious appetite for reading and learning. Luckily, the League has
: been able to feed us what we most desired.
Better look more closely at the titles. Many of them are by people other
than the ARRL. (or go to a ham shack that was started BEFORE 1970 if you
want to find books from the 1950s!)
: Ham radio and reading are inseparable; and it takes a business to do
: what the League has accomplished.
Yep, and others contributed to the effort also.
: 73, Jeff KH6O
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
Jeffrey Herman
>jeff...@Hawaii.Edu says...
>>T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>Cecil....@IEEE.org says...
>>>>Consider where ham radio would be today if the ARRL had never existed.
>>>You're right. The frequencies would probably have been put to better use by
>>>now.
>>Tell us, Tom -- how would our HF frequencies be currently utilized if
>>there had been no ARRL? (Details, please; try to reply with more than
>>one line.)
>Simple. They'd be utilized by shortwave broadcast stations, and perhaps maybe
>long range commercial stations.
So you believe that shortwave broadcast propaganda is a better use of
HF than that of amateurs? (I have to wonder why you and Burt are
licensed...) Is commercial use better than amateur use? If so, for
whom?
>It would be a helluva lot better than the mundane blather about the weather and
>health problems, as well as the DXers and contesters that seem to have
>overtaken the bands.
That's a bit of an exaggeration since contests are not permitted on
the WARC bands.
If you search long enough you'll find a group which might interest you:
Astro Net in which members exchange observation data as they peer into the
nighttime sky with their telescopes, the scuba divers net where discussion
includes coral reefs and ocean heating (which is causing a rise in ocean
level), senior war vets exchanging history-packed war stories, on-the-air
chess games, the Geology Net in which amateur gem hunters discuss recent
finds, the Society of Wireless Pioneers Net where former professional
radiomen meet and exchange stories, plus dozens more. I'm sure there is
some group out there which would appeal to you.
Jeff KH6O
horses...@my-deja.com
jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
> If you search long enough you'll find a group which might interest
you:
> Astro Net in which members exchange observation data as they peer into
the
> nighttime sky with their telescopes, the scuba divers net where
discussion
> includes coral reefs and ocean heating (which is causing a rise in
ocean
> level), senior war vets exchanging history-packed war stories,
on-the-air
> chess games, the Geology Net in which amateur gem hunters discuss
recent
> finds, the Society of Wireless Pioneers Net where former professional
> radiomen meet and exchange stories, plus dozens more. I'm sure there
is
> some group out there which would appeal to you.
Most of these(and many more) groups exist on the Internet, right now.
They are also much more effecient, because all messages in a discussion
are saved forever(theoretically) - so the discussions can take place at
everyone's convenience.
The technology exists to make an Internet voice net that would provide
all the benefits, and none of the drawbacks, of an HF voice net. Hardly
anyone seems to be interested in this kind of thing, though.
> Jeff KH6O
Stewart - N0MHS
Jeffrey Herman
>jeff...@Hawaii.Edu says...
>>Tab, 73, CQ -- each published dozens of amateur-related books.
>Maybe at one time, but the last time I was at AES in Cleveland, about 80%
>of the books were ARRL publications. Looks like a monopoly to me.
Is that really a monopoly? AES alone decides its stock. They know what
sells and what doesn't. OTOH, suppose no others publish amateur-related
books; can the League be faulted? Is that monopoly? Is a newspaper
in a single-newspaper-town a monopoly?
Steve - KF2TI/AE
> In article <delW4.21042$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
> > reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
> > mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
> > are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
> > to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
> > this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
> > numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
> >
>
> Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
>
> Considering that the current US ham population is several
> hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
> statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
> should be several times that many dying per month.
>
> Or did you just mean ARRL members? That number still sounds
> too low.
>
> OTOH, if hams only die at the rate of 55/month we could promote
> amateur radio just on its health benefits. :-)
And they just reported that WWII aged veterans were dying at a rate of
1000 per week and the national cemeteries are filling up. Guess the Army
and the ARS are both bad bets. Wonder how scared the VFW is (using the
same logic as the original poster) about their decreasing numbers.
Maybe if we had a few more wars, they could promote and increase
membership???
Who knows, if G. W is elected, he could send a few 100k to the middle
east just like his old man, so that the Tx Oil Barons can keep their
restrictive club memberships current.
DX= FCC rules DO NOT prohibit the inclusion of any
type of reimbursement for postage, nor does it make
illegal any voluntary donation that the sender wishes
to include
Repeaters= The FCC recognizes the right of individuals
and organizations to maintain close repeaters and
DOES NOT make it a crime to allow cited examples from
collecting monetary funds to maintain these operations
Kim W5TIT
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Craig Gagner" <crga...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:3932...@flexnet239.uunt.net...
> Thats what I wanted to hear, well I hope you get the same amount of help
> with the Heli's that you offer for new Hams.
>
> I am a rather acomplished RC Heli flyer, although I am a new no code ham,
> and your attitude to the new hams I can only hope is reciprocated when you
> attempt to fly RC Heli's.
>
Kim W5TIT
toys from the sand box, pushing his lower lip out real long, and pouting his
way home.... ROFLMAO....
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Larry Roll K3LT" <yo...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000530221750...@nso-md.aol.com...
>
> Craig:
>
> Why the hell would I need some steenking gyro or an even more
> steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C helicopter?
> I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked up a transmitter
> and started flying -- well! I participated in what used to be called
> Class D Expert Pattern up until I joined the Air Force in '76. I got
> a bit detached from R/C at that point, and have done very little
> flying since. I can still pick up the box and fly well, however!
>
> All this said, one thing I always insist on doing is flying safely!
> This is where I see newcomers to the hobby falling down flat
> on their faces! I think they have too many crutches (like gyros)
> and too little in the way of flying skills or good judgment. Therefore,
> like ham radio, I never encourage anyone to get involved in R/C
> flying. It's publicized well enough so that those who have a
> natural interest in it will be attracted to it in their own time.
> Like ham radio, R/C flying is not for everyone, and it doesn't
> have to be! I guess I'm just not as obsessed as most R/C'ers
> and hams seem to be!
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
>
>
>
Jeffrey Herman
>Jeffrey Herman (jeff...@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>: During the 50s when SSB was finding its way into ham radio, there was no
>: pub one could turn to to learn about this new mode except the League's SSB
>: Manual.
>"SSB" by Collins was rather "helpful" :)
So were QST articles on SSB back in the 20s, way before Collins' time.
>We've been through this before and it is just not true. Is this just a
>repost of your previous incorrect post? I have many publications on my
>shelf printed in the 1950s about SSB and they are NOT by the ARRL.
Year printed? Number of hams who hold copies? Were they written for
amateurs or professionals? Again, QST is a publication -- the articles
contained in it on any topic appeared before any author penned an
amateur-related book on that subject.
>SSB was done on audio in the 1920s.
The phone company did it earlier than that.
>You really don't think that the ARRL
>was the only one to publish information about it up to 1950+ do you?
For amateurs? I'd say so. But again, SSB articles appeared as early
as the 20s in QST, a League publication.
>; Also during that decade the FCC relaxed the regs regarding mobile
>: operation - no one else published a mobile manual except the League
>: (1955).
>Again, this was disproven a few months ago. I have several "manuals"
>written by RCA, CQ etc on mobile ham radio. Motorola did do a "little"
>work with mobile rigs in the 1950s :)
That would be interesting that CQ published a mobile manual before
mobile operation was made legal! What's its date of publication?
RCA ham tips? Those are 6-8 page booklets; not much can be contained
in six pages. Motorola's publications were not for the typical ham.
Mobile work for non-amateurs was being done as early that the 20s.
>: To whom could you turn to for the great ideas and techniques that appear
>: in the Hints and Kinks booklets?
>RCA "Ham Tips" for one.
Six pages.
>VHF magazine etc etc.
Completely devoted to hints and kinks? Nope. Yet QST goes back to 1915;
that beats RCA, CQ, VHF, et al.
>; Propagation and antennas: The Antenna Manual.
>This was also covered by other publications.
I didn't say no other antenna pubs existed. But of all which were
published, there is little doubt which was the most popular. Yet
antenna and propagation articles in QST pre-date any other ham-
related publication.
>: Who else in the 60s produced a VHF Manual?
>"VHF Handbook" by Bill Orr and Mr. Johnson. "VHF for the Radio Amateur"
>by Frank C. Jones are amoung the ones that I have.
Yes, I also have Orr's book, but there is little doubt which was the
most popular. Again, VHF articles in QST pre-date anyone else's
amateur-targeted publication.
>; And when that VHF
>: crowd began exploring FM: The FM and Repeater Manual. The very first
>: book in the 80s devoted to amateur digital comms was the League's Get
>: Connected.
No comment?
>; How in the world
>: could you possibly find fault with this business side of the League?
>I'm not finding fault, only your posting incorrect facts that they were
>the -ONLY- one doing it.
I'll stand by my claim that the League published topic-specific books
(and articles in QST) targeting the amateur community first; SSB
articles in QST appeared before Collins' book; VHF-related articles
appeared in QST prior to any book published on the subject; antenna-
related articles appeared in QST prior to any book being published
on the subject; et cetera.
>: Ham radio and reading are inseparable; and it takes a business to do
>: what the League has accomplished.
>Yep, and others contributed to the effort also.
Yet, you'll almost always find that the League beat them to it, with
its QST articles.
Jeff
p1415...@yahoo.com
"zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
[...]
> While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
> reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
> mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
> are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
> to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
> this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
> numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
>
Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
Considering that the current US ham population is several
hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
should be several times that many dying per month.
Or did you just mean ARRL members? That number still sounds
too low.
OTOH, if hams only die at the rate of 55/month we could promote
amateur radio just on its health benefits. :-)
F
Larry Roll K3LT
<crga...@peoplepc.com> writes:
>
>Please dont Larry we dont need anyone coming back to AMA with an attitude as
>yours to new comers.. Oh BTW if you dont learn to fly Heli's with no Gyro
>and a standard 4 channel radio then you will never be as good as I am. There
>how does that feel ?? Thats the way you come across to new tech no code
>hams. I am quite accomplished with both fixed wing and heli's, been doing it
>since 1987 and enjoy helping the new folks out as much as possible. Its
>almost easy to learn heli's with piezo gyro's and computer radios.
Craig:
horses...@my-deja.com
yo...@aol.comnospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
> In article <3932...@flexnet239.uunt.net>, "Craig Gagner"
> <crga...@peoplepc.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Please dont Larry we dont need anyone coming back to AMA with an
attitude as
> >yours to new comers.. Oh BTW if you dont learn to fly Heli's with no
Gyro
> >and a standard 4 channel radio then you will never be as good as I
am. There
> >how does that feel ?? Thats the way you come across to new tech no
code
> >hams. I am quite accomplished with both fixed wing and heli's, been
doing it
> >since 1987 and enjoy helping the new folks out as much as possible.
Its
> >almost easy to learn heli's with piezo gyro's and computer radios.
>
> Craig:
>
> Why the hell would I need some steenking gyro or an even more
> steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C helicopter?
> I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked up a transmitter
> and started flying -- well! I participated in what used to be called
> Class D Expert Pattern up until I joined the Air Force in '76. I got
> a bit detached from R/C at that point, and have done very little
> flying since. I can still pick up the box and fly well, however!
Explains your backward thinking :)
> All this said, one thing I always insist on doing is flying safely!
> This is where I see newcomers to the hobby falling down flat
> on their faces! I think they have too many crutches (like gyros)
> and too little in the way of flying skills or good judgment.
Therefore,
> like ham radio, I never encourage anyone to get involved in R/C
> flying. It's publicized well enough so that those who have a
> natural interest in it will be attracted to it in their own time.
> Like ham radio, R/C flying is not for everyone, and it doesn't
> have to be! I guess I'm just not as obsessed as most R/C'ers
> and hams seem to be!
We are building autoland and point-and-click loiter capability into our
Predator/I-Gnat unmanned aircraft - Global Hawk is already there, and
all other manufacturers will have to follow suit, or fold up their
tents. This technology will flow down to hobbiests in due time. R/C
pilots will soon be as rare as CW operators!
And rightly so - in general, R/C pilots take far too long to train(it
took from 6 months to a year to get a guy trained well on the Hunter
program). By the time the PFC learns the ropes(most can't, by the
way), he has become a Corporal, or a Sergeant and it is time for him to
move on! The Army needs to be able to train a GI in a matter of weeks,
not months.
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
Stewart - N0MHS
Steve
<kf...@interactive.net> wrote:
>In article <8h1rav$9vn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, p1415...@yahoo.com says...
>And they just reported that WWII aged veterans were dying at a rate of
>1000 per week and the national cemeteries are filling up. Guess the Army
>and the ARS are both bad bets. Wonder how scared the VFW is (using the
>same logic as the original poster) about their decreasing numbers.
>
>Maybe if we had a few more wars, they could promote and increase
>membership???
>
>Who knows, if G. W is elected, he could send a few 100k to the middle
>east just like his old man, so that the Tx Oil Barons can keep their
>restrictive club memberships current.
I'm usually a democrat but George W senior recognized the fact that
this *whole* country runs on *oil* . if Saddam got control of the
middle east oil fields can you say USA = 3rd world nation ?
Bill Sohl
>In article <delW4.21042$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
>[...]
>> While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
>> reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
>> mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
>> are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
>> to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
>> this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
>> numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
>
>Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
That is the number of hams that ARRL directly is
told about through one source or another. That does
not probably reflect the 3/4 of the ham population
that are not ARRL members and many ARRL members probably
are not known to ARRL when they become SK other
that when their membership is not renewed.
>Considering that the current US ham population is several
>hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
>statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
>should be several times that many dying per month.
Yes, for the reasons above.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
General Mark Morgan
troops to do battle for 'oil'?
"Steve - KF2TI/AE (Landing, NJ)" wrote:
>
> In article <8h1rav$9vn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, p1415...@yahoo.com says...
> > In article <delW4.21042$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
> > > reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
> > > mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
> > > are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
> > > to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
> > > this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
> > > numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
> > >
> >
> > Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
> >
> > Considering that the current US ham population is several
> > hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
> > statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
> > should be several times that many dying per month.
> >
> > Or did you just mean ARRL members? That number still sounds
> > too low.
> >
> > OTOH, if hams only die at the rate of 55/month we could promote
> > amateur radio just on its health benefits. :-)
>
> And they just reported that WWII aged veterans were dying at a rate of
> 1000 per week and the national cemeteries are filling up. Guess the Army
> and the ARS are both bad bets. Wonder how scared the VFW is (using the
> same logic as the original poster) about their decreasing numbers.
>
> Maybe if we had a few more wars, they could promote and increase
> membership???
>
> Who knows, if G. W is elected, he could send a few 100k to the middle
> east just like his old man, so that the Tx Oil Barons can keep their
> restrictive club memberships current.
>
Craig Gagner
I just knew I was conversing with a legend in his own mind !!!
Time to install the twit filter !
See ya'll Craig
> >
> >Please dont Larry we dont need anyone coming back to AMA with an attitude
as
> >yours to new comers.. Oh BTW if you dont learn to fly Heli's with no Gyro
> >and a standard 4 channel radio then you will never be as good as I am.
There
> >how does that feel ?? Thats the way you come across to new tech no code
> >hams. I am quite accomplished with both fixed wing and heli's, been doing
it
> >since 1987 and enjoy helping the new folks out as much as possible. Its
> >almost easy to learn heli's with piezo gyro's and computer radios.
>
> Craig:
>
> Why the hell would I need some steenking gyro or an even more
> steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C helicopter?
> I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked up a transmitter
> and started flying -- well! I participated in what used to be called
> Class D Expert Pattern up until I joined the Air Force in '76. I got
> a bit detached from R/C at that point, and have done very little
> flying since. I can still pick up the box and fly well, however!
>
> All this said, one thing I always insist on doing is flying safely!
> This is where I see newcomers to the hobby falling down flat
> on their faces! I think they have too many crutches (like gyros)
> and too little in the way of flying skills or good judgment. Therefore,
> like ham radio, I never encourage anyone to get involved in R/C
> flying. It's publicized well enough so that those who have a
> natural interest in it will be attracted to it in their own time.
> Like ham radio, R/C flying is not for everyone, and it doesn't
> have to be! I guess I'm just not as obsessed as most R/C'ers
> and hams seem to be!
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
>
>
>
Richard McCollum
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@interactive.net> wrote in message
news:3934f5ca...@news.interactive.net...
> > "zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
> >> reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
> >> mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
> >> are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
> >> to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
> >> this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
> >> numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
> >
> >Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
>
> told about through one source or another. That does
> not probably reflect the 3/4 of the ham population
> that are not ARRL members and many ARRL members probably
> are not known to ARRL when they become SK other
> that when their membership is not renewed.
>
> >hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
> >statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
> >should be several times that many dying per month.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
Now we can add 'outlive the bastards' to the list of strategies for DX
pileups.
Dick BK
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> Why the hell would I need some steenking gyro or an even more
> steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C helicopter?
> I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked up a transmitter
> and started flying -- well!
What's this? You didn't prove your skill at flying by taking a test first?
Does that mean that your flying accomplishments are not valid? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
radi...@mindspring.com
His influenece in the recent normalization of trade with China bill which
should be passed by the Senate despite a moron like Jesse Helms will prove
to be one of the most important pieces of INTELLIGENT legislation to ever
come down from Capitol Hill. Why?
BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL! That's right, OIL. Forget the rest of the stuff
you've heard about what China will give us and vice versa---that country has
GREATER oil reserves than all the OPECKERS combined!
The standard networks don't talk about it and neither do the WWCR and
Genesis Network crowd but I got wind of it from my cousin Sidney who's a spy
and that's the REAL REASON why we have cozied up to Red China and if Taiwan
doesn't like it, that's too bad because that place is just an island which
is a nothing.
As a way of saying thanks to Clinton, the Chinese Prime Minister "Red Fat
Hung" will allow us to go in there and DRILL and buy at prices much much
lower than that of OPEC's. It will have a fantastic effect on our economy
which President Al Gore will exploit to the fullest.
And youse guys are so concerned with ham radio and the ARRL? As far as I'm
concerned, the ARRL SOLD US OUT-it's as plain and simple as that and I ended
my membership until the dues drop to $14.95/year. My suggestion is THINK
CHINA! Visit Chinese restaurants more often. Overdose on MSG. Bring in more
shirts. Throw out your silverware and buy chopsticks.
The sleeping giant in the far east will awaken with our help and emerge as
the major global power in the 21st century and if you think she's going to
nuke us, you're nuts. Once she sees all those Yankee greenbacks pouring into
her economy and all the coolies going from pulling rickshaws to driving
BMWs, her oil will drive that OPEC scam out of business. In fact the
Israelis will sense a good deal and offer to buy their crude for $3 a
barrel.
Oy vey what a day it'll be when China influences America so much that our
school kids will learn to read "My Dog Spot" from top to bottom instead of
from left to right.
There's a Chinaman in Clifton who went to jail for constantly peking into
windows.
AF2Y, Doc
----------
In article <39352123...@ahole.com>, General Mark Morgan
<one.big...@ahole.com> wrote:
> And what did your president, Bill Clinton ' do? Did he not send
> troops to do battle for 'oil'?
>
> "Steve - KF2TI/AE (Landing, NJ)" wrote:
>>
>> In article <8h1rav$9vn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, p1415...@yahoo.com says...
>> > In article <delW4.21042$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> > "zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
>> > > reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
>> > > mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
>> > > are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
>> > > to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
>> > > this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
>> > > numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
>> >
>> > Considering that the current US ham population is several
>> > hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
>> > statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
>> > should be several times that many dying per month.
>> >
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> <ARRL> now caters to the equipment manufacturers for advertising dollars.
According to the ARRL's annual reports, the advertising revenues are a
distant third to dues and publications sales. In the June issue of QST,
less than half of the ad space was for actual manufacturers.
Can you offer some examples of actions that ARRL has taken that you feel
have been to the benefit of equipment manufacturers without being a benefit
to Amateur Radio.
> My view is that it is a now a publishing house that also lobby's for it's
> publishing's area of interest on the side.
Can you explain where you believe this "lobbying" takes place? I didn't see
anything in any FCC filing that lobbied for ARRL publications.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> Maybe at one time, but the last time I was at AES in Cleveland, about 80%
of
> the books were ARRL publications. Looks like a monopoly to me.
Last time I went past Rosewood's table at a convention, about 40% of the
books looked like ARRL books. Maybe AES stocks the ones that sell the best.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> I'd personally take it a step further, to say that the ARRL has a monopoly
on
> the amateur radio publishing market. However, I doubt that the government
will
> go after them the way they have with Microsoft.
Please take a look at the results of a search of the ARRL TIS database at:
http://www.arrl.org/cgi-bin/tisfind?case=on&patt=PUBLICATION%3eBOOK
then explain how a monopoly can have so much competition. And ARRL is even
promoting those companies by including them in its database.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Jeffrey Herman
>And they just reported that WWII aged veterans were dying at a rate of
>1000 per week and the national cemeteries are filling up.
Steve, that figure is 1000 per DAY!!
Jeff
Larry Roll K3LT
<w1...@arrl.net> writes:
>> Why the hell would I need some steenking gyro or an even more
>> steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C helicopter?
>> I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked up a transmitter
>> and started flying -- well!
>
>What's this? You didn't prove your skill at flying by taking a test first?
>Does that mean that your flying accomplishments are not valid? :-)
>
Ed:
Flying radio controlled model airplanes does not require a license.
The transmitters used to operate under Part 95 and required a CB
license, but that requirement has been dropped; we now have
about 50 channels in the 72 - 75 MHz region. Don't know all the
technical details because I've been away from it for years. And
whether or not my flying accomplishments are "valid" is something
I could care less about. If some sort of licensing and testing for
a license were necessary, I would just do whatever was necessary
to pass the tests, then keyboard-slam all the lazy whiners who
didn't want to learn something useful to pass the tests! Any
other questions?
73 de Larry, K3LT
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> >> Why the hell would I need some steenking gyro or an even more
> >> steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C helicopter?
> >> I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked up a transmitter
> >> and started flying -- well!
> >What's this? You didn't prove your skill at flying by taking a test
first?
> >Does that mean that your flying accomplishments are not valid? :-)
> Flying radio controlled model airplanes does not require a license.
> The transmitters used to operate under Part 95 and required a CB
> license, but that requirement has been dropped; we now have
> about 50 channels in the 72 - 75 MHz region. Don't know all the
> technical details because I've been away from it for years. And
> whether or not my flying accomplishments are "valid" is something
> I could care less about. If some sort of licensing and testing for
> a license were necessary, I would just do whatever was necessary
> to pass the tests, then keyboard-slam all the lazy whiners who
> didn't want to learn something useful to pass the tests! Any
> other questions?
Yeah, but the answer would be as convoluted as this one was, so I am sure it
would serve no purpose. I think that your answer showed your colors just
fine, Larry; I am quite content to let it stand on its own.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
Be gentle with Ed, Larry. He's struggling with trying to balance what he
knows is right on the inside with what the ARRL and the Whiner crowd want
on the outside.
Don't give in to the Dark-side "Luke". Oops, to late, Gotta keep the BoD
happy to get a paycheck.
yo...@aol.comnospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in
<20000601004326...@nso-md.aol.com>:
>In article <HUcZ4.23$d5.3...@news.ntplx.net>, "Ed Hare, W1RFI"
><w1...@arrl.net> writes:
>>What's this? You didn't prove your skill at flying by taking a test
>>first? Does that mean that your flying accomplishments are not valid?
>>:-)
>>
>
>Ed:
>
>Flying radio controlled model airplanes does not require a license.
>The transmitters used to operate under Part 95 and required a CB
>license, but that requirement has been dropped; we now have
>about 50 channels in the 72 - 75 MHz region. Don't know all the
>technical details because I've been away from it for years. And
>whether or not my flying accomplishments are "valid" is something
>I could care less about. If some sort of licensing and testing for
>a license were necessary, I would just do whatever was necessary
>to pass the tests, then keyboard-slam all the lazy whiners who
>didn't want to learn something useful to pass the tests! Any
>other questions?
>
>73 de Larry, K3LT
>
Kim W5TIT
--
73 de W5TIT - Kim
NCI 3343
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfi...@mcn.net> wrote in message
news:sjd59j1...@corp.supernews.com...
Larry Roll K3LT
<w1...@arrl.net> writes:
>
>Sorry, Vince; it may offer you some comfort to think that, but I post only
>what I believe. If I didn't believe what I said, I could just as easily
>not post, and it would not affect my professional standing at ARRL one whit;
>I am not paid to post on rrap, I am paid to run the Lab, to work on RFI and
>to coordinate the Lab's technical input to ARRL publications, our
>spectrum-protection efforts and the like.
>
Ed:
OK, let's leave you out of this for a bit. If you know one person who
works at ARRL HQ, who is a licensed amateur, and is in complete
disagreement with the concept of restructuring, who is it? If you can't
or won't answer for privacy reasons, ask that person if he/she would
kindly post to this newsgroup voluntarily. I'll bet you a lobster dinner
you can't find anyone that is willing to do that. I firmly believe that
anyone who works for ARRL HQ is required to tow a strictly Pro-
Restructuring line -- and cannot, for fear of jeopardizing their
employment, speak out against it in any way. And I hereby state to
all in this newsgroup that it is highly unlikely that we'll ever see that
happen!
We all live in a democracy, but very few of us work in one. It is
perfectly normal, natural, and even legal for corporations or
organizations to require their employees and/or volunteer staff to
never speak out with an opinion which is contrary to the goals of
that organization. I have absolutely no doubt that ARRL HQ
exacts this kind of speech control, if not thought control, over
it's employees and volunteer staff. If anyone at ARRL HQ is
in absolute total, unqualified disagreement with Restructuring,
I'm sure a trap door has been installed under his chair --
ready to send him into a pit of hungry alligators the minute he
opens his mouth!
73 de Larry, K3LT
n2...@aol.com
p1415...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <delW4.21042$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "zincplaterubberant" <kru...@cir43a.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > While you are correct on your above observation, the greater
> > reason is our years and years of hanging onto an outdated
> > mode called CW. Today the American Retentive Radio Luddites
> > are running scared. Their membership is truly dying off
> > to the tune of an average of 55 US hams per month. Don't believe
> > this? Go to the library or your stacks of QST and check the
> > numbers in the SK listings for the past 8-12 months.
> >
>
> Only 55 US hams die per month? No, I don't believe that.
Me neither.
>
> Considering that the current US ham population is several
> hundred thousand (what is it now, about 600,000?), if the
> statistics for hams is similar to the general population there
> should be several times that many dying per month.
>
678,000, give or take a few.
Let's do some really crude estimates. Let's say the "average" ham
"career" lasts 50 years, and that almost all hams keep their licenses
till they pass away. (Note the word "average"). Then we can expect 2%
of the ARS to expire per year, or 0.167% per month. 0.167% of 678,000
is about 1132 per month.
> Or did you just mean ARRL members? That number still sounds
> too low.
Correct! Assuming 1 in 4 US hams is an ARRL member, we get 283 per
month.
>
> OTOH, if hams only die at the rate of 55/month we could promote
> amateur radio just on its health benefits. :-)
>
Yup!
One thing I've not seen yet is a breakdown of ARS licensees by age, and
comparisons with the US population as a whole. We see single number
"average age" stats, but they are meaningless without more detail. And
a correction factor must be included to allow for the fact that there
are few hams under the age of about 10.
73 de Jim, N2EY (age 46, licensed since age 13, very much alive and
kicking)
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Bob Wex w2ilp
"Unclaimed Mysteries" <k4...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> took another step toward USENET
history
> by writing in part:
>
> > The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young*
newcomers
> to
> > ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.
Elitism may be only a part of it. The largest so called
generation "gap" occurred during the 60s when the youth of the USA took
on a new culture that was opposed to the Viet Nam war and opposed to a
lot of the conservative thinking of the older generation who fought in
WW2. The result was the development of rebellous anti-government youth
who sometimes went as far as becoming part of the druggie scene. Their
rationalization for their anti-social behavior was based at least in
part by their discovery of government hypocracy such as the Watergate
affair. Hams have (inspite of some bigoted wizards) always represented
a conservative group which is patriotic and loyal to our government.
This has led to the continuation of what started as a "generation gap".
IMHO that gap is getting bigger as time goes on. The gap is
recognizable in the types of music and sadistic entertainmemt that
polarizes the young vs the old culture. Unfortunately Ham Radio is
seen, even by many Hams, as a part of the OLD CULTURE. This in itself
makes it very hard to sell to the younger generation. on the other
hand the freedom of speech that we see on the internet and even in this
NG is not typical of trasditional Ham Radio content. Most Hams do not
want to discuss sex, religion or politics over the air. (These
subjects are taboo since Ham Radio content must be G rated)...BUT some
will in NGs. This leaves Ham Radio a dry and sterile field as far as
most youths are concerned. In short it offers no exciting surprises as
far as its content goes.
> >
> > The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think
that
> they're
> > doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one
> individual
> > group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as
well as
> > teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They
walk
> into a
> > CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and
complain
> > because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some
obscure band
> from
> > San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
I agree.
> D00d, BMM sucked out loud after their first album, making your
argument
> impotent.
>
> > This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist
> mindset are
> > very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the
people
> > involved.
IMHO Hams who are technically innovative do have some qualities to
feel "elite" about...just as hacker gurus may. If Hams can feel that
Ham Radio has some bragging value then there can be no motive for most
people to become Hams.
> "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm
> preaching to." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
A very good quote. It applies to me as well.
> > Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's philosophy, as no
> > one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into
general
> > assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
Yep...You can't talk down to a non-captive audience for long. Captive
audiences include only those in required school classes, court rooms,
military posts and unfortunate enough to be inside of a moving vehicle
where a loquatious speaker is propounding. Peopl;e and especially
youths don't want to be talked down to...even by their own parents.
BUT
IMHO you don't have to talk down or be talked down to to be an ass-hole.
Ass-holeism comes with a much larger field of territory.
> Not true!
>
> > I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in
club
> > meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the
internet.
>
> SHUT UP NAZI! Oops, sorry, reflex action.
Again we see the poster that seeks to analyze society being labelled a
Nazi. In my cast I would probably get labled a Leftist for agreeing
about the same social conditions.
> > My
> > idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing
many
> > different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent
exchange of
> > information. (That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX
contact)
I would suggest that you take an IQ test and join Mensa. Then you
could talk to intelligent people via Mensan NGs. Unfortunately you
might find that these is little difference in the responses that you
will get from the Mensans and the folks in this ham policy NG. A lot
of smart people don't know how to communicate productively. Humans
tend to do things and say things to satisfy their own egos when they
are doing things that don't involve a monetary profit motive.. This is
basic human nature.
> However,
> > that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen. Some
will even
> say
> > that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as
outlined in
> Part
> > 97.1. These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that
amateur
Yep...This is the traditional conservative nature of the hobby and has
not changed with the changing American social culture.
> radio has
> > become stagnant.
>
> 97.1 does not prohibit these discussions. But talk about something
the
> least bit controversial, and the jammers will pile on. It's not just
ham
> radio.
Now you can understand my point of view. I believe that Ham Radio
should be primarily a TECHNICAL HOBBY. It has always been accepted
that Hams can discuss radio technology, their equipment, antennas,
etc. If we go to far in thinking that Hams like CBers and NG posters
can be permitted to discuss anything that they feel like we are
changing a basic Ham tradition that has set Hams apart from other
communications users in the past and IMHO must continue to do so...Not
just so Hams can feel elite but so they can learn technology and
pioneer in modern innovation which can approach the state of the art.
>Intolerance of other views is on the upswing everywhere. I dare say
> that if cancelling others' usenet posts was easier, most messages
would
> never appear. It's an attitude of "you're not just wrong, but evil."
After a
> while, fatigue sets in and people don't care. Hayul, the 3945 bunch
gets
> jammed when they mostly talk about RADIO!
It is too bad that bigots and extremists often can not respect their
opponents...BUT that is the very nature of their definition.
> > But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white,
males who
> have
I'm old and white but not quite obese.
> > nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their
health
> > problems, and the weather.
> >
Yeah about the RADIO technology in the good ol' days, how weather
effects RADIO propagation and how RADIO radiation might effect heaslth.
>
> Old. Obese. White. Male. Hey, where's the love?
>
Love is a many splendive thing...made firm by Viagra.
> > Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure
isn't
> going to
> > save ham radio. A lower code test requirement isn't going to save
ham
> radio.
> > Only a change of attitude will save ham radio.
AGREED!!!
> Donating an FT-1000 to Unclaimed Mysteries is good first step, IMHO.
>
> > Until a redefining of the basis
> > and purpose
There can never be a basis and purpose to redefine our basis and
purpose. If you analyze which paragraphs need to be changed you can
only see an elimination of those very paragraphs with nothing real to
replace them...and thus an end to what are defined as the very basic
values of Ham Radio.
> happens, and until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal
> of
> > the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue
to
> grow, and
> > interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the
dead
> > languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common
use.
Very good analogy.
> There is no need for a 100% overlap between the net and amateur
radio. I'm
> frustrated with the stagnation too. But sometimes you just gotta make
your
> own fun. Heard 14.070 lately?
Maybe we need more Ham humorists who know some clean jokes that won't
offend anybody. Nah...They wouldn't be very funny.
> --
> It came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/
> Public school all the way, bay-bee. So much for "socialization."
>
The public needs public schools...AND
Hams need more license classes,
Bob Wex w2ilp (Inspire Learning Public)
Jon Bloom
>
> One thing I've not seen yet is a breakdown of ARS licensees by age, and
> comparisons with the US population as a whole.
You can do that using the December 1996 data, but the FCC hasn't been
collecting or publishing birth dates since that time so a breakdown by
age of the current ham population isn't readily available.
Jon, KE3Z
Steve Robeson
>From: Bob Wex w2ilp w2...@juno.com
>Date: 06/02/2000 8:19 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8h8c8k$jqj
>> T.L. Bryant <tlbr...@my-deja.com> took another step toward USENET history
by writing in part:
>> > The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young* newcomers
to ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.<<
From this, Bob delved into a lengthy dissertation on the generation gap.
Neither one of you are correct.
The lack of "youth" in Amateur Radio is a simple matter of lack of
application and a proliferation of other distractions.
We have to "accentuate the positive" and make it more appealing. The
days of being able to simply infect a youngster with our ability to communicate
globally with a crystal set and spark gap have passed.
Kids today need challenges, and those challenges must have some sort of
practical application.
Thre's no "elitism" or "generation gap" to it. It's ALWAYS been that way.
We just seem to want to forget that every so often and we wind up reinventing
the wheel.
So much wasted time when there's no time to waste at all.
73
Steve, K4YZ
n2...@aol.com
tlbr...@my-deja.com (T.L. Bryant) wrote:
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young*
newcomers to
> ham radio?"
But there ARE young newcomers to ham radio. A few weeks ago, a bunch of
local hams had dinner together to plan for FD, and among us was an 11
year old Tech. I'm also well acquainted with a local Extra who is 14,
and has several years' experience. And they are just the ones I know
well.
> The answer is quite simple: elitism.
The question is flawed.
>
> The elitist mentality fosters itself when a group of people think
that they're
> doing something "better" than someone else. It's not limited to one
individual
> group. It's a disease that infects Christian fundamentalists, as well
as
> teenagers who think they're "alternative". (You know the type. They
walk into a
> CD store, sporting spiked, purple hair and facial piercings, and
complain
> because the store doesn't have the entire discography of some obscure
band from
> San Francisco who call themselves Blood Monster Mushrooms.)
Sure. WHat does that have to do with ham radio?
>
> This elitism makes the group irrational. The dangers of the elitist
mindset are
> very real. First, it more than likely creates hypocrites out of the
people
> involved. Second, it annihilates the appeal of the group's
philosophy, as no
> one likes to be talked down to. Third, it turns the group into
general
> assholes, making them snobby, confrontatinal, and unlikeable.
Maybe.
>
> I've seen this attitude time and again in ham radio. It's seen in
club
> meetings, at hamfests, on the air, and most prevalently on the
internet.
Give us some examples, please.
> My
> idea of ham radio would be a wide range of individuals discussing
many
> different topics, and engaging in a meaningful and intelligent
exchange of
> information.
Sounds good to me. Sounds like many of the CW ragchews I have on 40
meters.
>(That certainly doesn't happen on the typical DX contact) However,
> that's asking for a Utopia that just isn't going to happen.
Why can't it happen?
> Some will even say
> that this is against the fundamental purpose of the service as
outlined in Part
> 97.1.
What rules would it violate? Obviously some things are off limits, but
not all.
> These people can't even see past a rulebook to see that amateur radio
has
> become stagnant.
Not to me!
> But, no. The majority of hams today are old and/or obese, white, males
Let's hold it right there a moment. First off, you're making a broad
generalization without any data being presented.
"old" - well, I'm 46. To a teenager, I'm old. To an octagenarian, I'm
young. How old are YOU? And why does age matter so much? How old does a
person have to be in order to be "old"?
"obese" - Most American adults are overweight, according to various
studies. Obese is defined as being more than a certain percentage
overweight (I can't recall the exact number offhand). Why should a
person's value be tied to their body mass index, as you seem to be
doing?
btw, I go 215 right now, at 6' 3". That's too heavy - I'm working
towards 180.
> who have
> nothing better to do than talk about the "good 'ol days", their
health
> problems, and the weather.
Not the hams I know. All sorts of great stuff on the local repeaters
and the CW bands.
>
> Based on these facts, you can see that the new license structure
isn't going to
> save ham radio.
Except that your "facts" turn out to be false, or irrelevant.
> A lower code test requirement isn't going to save ham radio.
So we should have left it alone? I don't think so! At least 75% of
commenters to the NPRM favored the 5 wpm General license.
> Only a change of attitude will save ham radio.
"Save" it from what?
>Until a redefining of the basis
> and purpose happens,
How's that going to happen?
> and until the poisonous elitism is purged, the appeal of
> the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas will continue to
grow, and
> interest in ham radio will continue to dwindle until it is like the
dead
> languages of Europe: Still there for the curious, but of no common
use.
Sorry, Tom, but the facts speak otherwise.
For one thing, if you look at the history of ham radio (at least in the
USA), you'll see that it has grown rapidly in some eras and slowly or
not at all in others. Rapid growth before and immediately after WW1 -
slow growth in the 1920s - a veritable explosion in the early '30s
(almost triple the number of hams in less than 5 years) - slow growth
through the rest of the '30s, then a decline during WW2.
Fast growth from the ned of WW2 to 1963, then no growth for almost a
decade. Steady growth from the early '70s to the late '80s, then very
slow growth since then.
US license figures: (approximate)
19K hams in 1929
46K hams in 1935
60K hams in 1946
100K hams in 1951
250K hams in 1963
350K hams in 1979
550K hams in 1990
678K hams in 2000
What downward trend?
73 de Jim, N2EY
-
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Jeffrey Herman
> The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young*
>newcomers to ham radio?"
Can they handle it? There's so much to learn:
In our one-hundred year history, only a small percentage of each
generation has shown an interest in the self-learning of electronic
theory, soldering, reading and understanding schematics, collecting
components, assembling radios, national and international radio laws,
ionospheric propagation and antenna theory, assembling antennas, and
communicating world-wide by RF emissions. It's very specialized; it
was never an Everyman's hobby. That we have 670,000 licensees attempting
to abide by our fundamental purpose (Title 47 CFR 97.1) is in itself
amazing.
Jeff
p57
> In article <2jBZ4.37$d5.4...@news.ntplx.net>, "Ed Hare, W1RFI"
> <w1...@arrl.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Sorry, Vince; it may offer you some comfort to think that, but I post only
> >what I believe. If I didn't believe what I said, I could just as easily
> >not post, and it would not affect my professional standing at ARRL one whit;
> >I am not paid to post on rrap, I am paid to run the Lab, to work on RFI and
> >to coordinate the Lab's technical input to ARRL publications, our
> >spectrum-protection efforts and the like.
> >
>
> Ed:
>
> OK, let's leave you out of this for a bit. If you know one person who
> works at ARRL HQ, who is a licensed amateur, and is in complete
> disagreement with the concept of restructuring, who is it? If you can't
> or won't answer for privacy reasons, ask that person if he/she would
> kindly post to this newsgroup voluntarily. I'll bet you a lobster dinner...
Geez Larry, you live in a crappy apartment in a crappy neighborhood and you spend
all of your time betting lobster dinners. Have you ever considered improving
your situation? Upgrading your LIFE? Hey - now that's a real incentive!
Larry Roll K3LT
<p57b...@pop3.freewwweb.com> writes:
>
>Geez Larry, you live in a crappy apartment in a crappy neighborhood and you
>spend
>all of your time betting lobster dinners. Have you ever considered improving
>your situation? Upgrading your LIFE? Hey - now that's a real incentive!
Huh? I live in what is probably one of the highest-rent apartment complexes
in the City of Dover, the neighborhood is very nice, and my "situation"
is just fine, thank you very much! About the only way I could improve
my "situation" would be to buy a house around here, but the real estate
market is a buyer's paradise and a seller's hell, and I just don't know for
sure how long I'll be living here. I am anticipating a radical career move
which could very well take me away from Delaware, if not out of the
country, in a year or so -- so I have no need to go thru the hassle of
buying a house, moving into it, and selling it for a loss! New homes
here are overpriced and under-value for money spent, mainly because
Delaware is being paved over at a record pace by a high-volume,
cookie-cutter cheeze-box developer. Fly over northern New Castle
County and all you'll see is vinyl siding as far as the eye can see!
Nope -- my present situation suits me just fine, thank you very much --
and I enjoy the challenge of operating QRP/CW from my apartment!
And it's unlikely that the house I eventually purchase, if I ever purchase
another one, won't be chosen for it's suitability to ham radio operation!
That used to always be a priority for me, but it isn't anymore! Now I'm
more concerned with potential for increased resale value. I'll leave
the unsightly towers and beams to the terminal microphone morons!
73 de Larry, K3LT
p57
> In article <393885B8...@pop3.freewwweb.com>, p57
> <p57b...@pop3.freewwweb.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Geez Larry, you live in a crappy apartment in a crappy neighborhood and you
> >spend
> >all of your time betting lobster dinners. Have you ever considered improving
> >your situation? Upgrading your LIFE? Hey - now that's a real incentive!
>
> Huh? I live in what is probably one of the highest-rent apartment complexes
> in the City of Dover, the neighborhood is very nice, and my "situation"
> is just fine, thank you very much!
Yet you complain that the gym is populated with "OZ" types and on and on and on.
Which is it?
> About the only way I could improve
> my "situation" would be to buy a house around here, but the real estate
> market is a buyer's paradise and a seller's hell, and I just don't know for
> sure how long I'll be living here. I am anticipating a radical career move
> which could very well take me away from Delaware, if not out of the
> country,
Oh boy, another ex-patriot "Real DXer" offering advice from afar. Maybe some
Hawaii ham will rent you space in his PO Box. Let us know how the restructuring
affects your ability to get a no-exam callsign in whatever foreign country you
decide to move to.
David J. Windisch
K3BHJ
******************************************************
"Jeffrey Herman" <jeff...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in message
news:8h4d1h$2cl$1...@news.hawaii.edu...
W6RCecilA
> The lack of "youth" in Amateur Radio is a simple matter of lack of
> application and a proliferation of other distractions.
Oh? What's your reference for that fact?
> The
> days of being able to simply infect a youngster with our ability to communicate
> globally with a crystal set and spark gap have passed.
Oh, What's your reference for that fact?
> Kids today need challenges, and those challenges must have some sort of
> practical application.
Oh, What's your reference for that fact?
> Thre's no "elitism" or "generation gap" to it. It's ALWAYS been that way.
Oh? What's your reference for that fact?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
A fool discovers purpose where there is only process.
Bob Wex w2ilp
k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Ham radio's downward trend
> >From: Bob Wex w2ilp w2...@juno.com
> >Date: 06/02/2000 8:19 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8h8c8k$jqj
>
history
> by writing in part:
> >> > The question asked time and again is, "Why are there no *young*
newcomers
> to ham radio?" The answer is quite simple: elitism.<<
>
generation gap.
>
> Neither one of you are correct.
In my opinion all of us are correct. Peoples' motivation is a
complex subject. Motivation in any individual or for any group can be
promoted in various ways and there are many reasons why anyone might
not be enthuastic about any hobby or sport. Especially when such a
hobby or sport has grown out of style.
>
> The lack of "youth" in Amateur Radio is a simple matter of lack
of
> application and a proliferation of other distractions.
Yes in 1951 television viewing was recognized as a DISTRACTION - so
the answer was to create two new classes of license (Novice and
Technician).
Today the use of home PCs and surfing the Information Highway is
recognized as a distraction. So what did they do? They eliminated
three classes of license (Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced)! Simplifying
the license structure may be what old Ham appliance operators want (so
they can easily upgrade) BUT is it what is needed to motivate the youth
of America by showing that they can learn valuable technology that can
apply both to Radio and to digital communication? How can we get
teachers to promote Ham radio to the kids if they are busy teaching
them how to use PCs? The latter is now going to be funded by the
Federal Government because politicians of both major parties are now
committed to promoting the Information Highway. Computers and
everything involved with them is big business. If you break up
Microsoft into Microsoft and Macrohard the whole stock market will be
disrupted! By comparison Kenwood, Yaesu and ICOM are small peanuts.
> We have to "accentuate the positive" and make it more
appealing. The
> days of being able to simply infect a youngster with our ability to
communicate
> globally with a crystal set and spark gap have passed.
We can accentuate the positive BUT today PCs are seen as MORE
POSITIVE than Ham transceivers and more worthy of being accentuated.
> Kids today need challenges, and those challenges must have some
sort of
> practical application.
Yep and learning to be "at home" with computers is becoming a very
popular challenging application that has lots of educational value as
oppossed to Ham Radio, whose leaders say it is not a Technical Hobby.
> Thre's no "elitism" or "generation gap" to it. It's ALWAYS been
that way.
> We just seem to want to forget that every so often and we wind up
reinventing
> the wheel.
We may have to reinvent the wheel for the people who want to use
square wheels because round wheel technology knowledge is not required
on the Ham exams.
> So much wasted time when there's no time to waste at all.
Yep...Thats the truth. It was always true that young men had to
learn how to make a living and still have time to date the girls. This
left only a little time for most to engage in any hobbies that couldn't
satisfy either their quest for economic security or their sexual
needs. Nothing has changed today except that Ham leaders now say that
Ham Radio is not to be a Technical Hobby and a famous "Dilbert" cartoon
insinuates that Ham Radio is not a very sexy hobby either. (sic...It
only gives goose bumps). How can we expect to attract any normal guys
these days???
> 73
>
> Steve, K4YZ
>
73,
Hams need MORE license classes,
Bob Wex w2ilp (Incentive License Proponent)
----------------------------------------------
If you want your children to be brilliant,
tell them fairy tales. If you want them
to be very brilliant tell them more
fairy tales.
--Attributed to Albert Einstein--
Hmmm...Is that how we get conditioned to
learn? Maybe so...Because people always
seem to vote for the politicians who can
tell the best fairy tales. People think
that I am too technical. I admit that I
can't make up any new fairy tales that
haven't been read to me by my mother.
--w2ilp--
N9NWO
even more
: > steenking whiz-bang computer radio just to fly an R/C
helicopter?
: > I'm a natural-born R/C pilot -- literally just picked
up a transmitter
used to be called
: > Class D Expert Pattern up until I joined the Air Force
in '76. I got
: > a bit detached from R/C at that point, and have done
very little
: > flying since. I can still pick up the box and fly
well, however!
: Explains your backward thinking :)
:
: > All this said, one thing I always insist on doing is
flying safely!
: > This is where I see newcomers to the hobby falling down
flat
: > on their faces! I think they have too many crutches
(like gyros)
: > and too little in the way of flying skills or good
judgment.
: Therefore,
: > like ham radio, I never encourage anyone to get
involved in R/C
: > flying. It's publicized well enough so that those who
have a
: > natural interest in it will be attracted to it in their
own time.
: > Like ham radio, R/C flying is not for everyone, and it
doesn't
: > have to be! I guess I'm just not as obsessed as most
R/C'ers
: > and hams seem to be!
: We are building autoland and point-and-click loiter
capability into our
: Predator/I-Gnat unmanned aircraft - Global Hawk is
already there, and
: all other manufacturers will have to follow suit, or fold
up their
: tents. This technology will flow down to hobbiests in
due time. R/C
: pilots will soon be as rare as CW operators!
:
: And rightly so - in general, R/C pilots take far too long
to train(it
: took from 6 months to a year to get a guy trained well on
the Hunter
: program). By the time the PFC learns the ropes(most
can't, by the
: way), he has become a Corporal, or a Sergeant and it is
time for him to
: move on! The Army needs to be able to train a GI in a
matter of weeks,
: not months.
I had the Hunter (IAI) to use over the last few weeks at
Ft. Polk.
God is the UAV a blast!! Now the new brigade UAV system is
coming on line, the Shadow (http://www.shadow200.com).
For those of you who are young enough, the Army MOS for
flying
these birds is 96U which is part of the Military
Intelligence community.
It only requires a Secret clearance (criminal background
check).
And we still have Morse intercept operators as well (96H, I
believe).
Greg
Dean
SSG, MI
Clay N4AOX
>
> Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>
> > Ed:
> >
> > OK, let's leave you out of this for a bit. If you know one person who
> > works at ARRL HQ, who is a licensed amateur, and is in complete
> > disagreement with the concept of restructuring, who is it? If you can't
> > or won't answer for privacy reasons, ask that person if he/she would
> > kindly post to this newsgroup voluntarily. I'll bet you a lobster dinner...
>
> all of your time betting lobster dinners. Have you ever considered improving
> your situation? Upgrading your LIFE? Hey - now that's a real incentive!
What is wrong with lobster?
Hmmm, it seems Larry has led us to a defining moment here. I also await
Ed's answer, and please no Newington spin.
73,
Clay N4AOX