Here is how we can end all the silly antenna questions on the repeaters and on usenet.
Slow Code
If we raise the CW speed to 20 WPM for all classes including the Tech
class, hams will tend to study the theory more while they build up their
code skill and they will understand the theory better and won't need to
ask silly questions. So increasing the speed requirement will get us
better & smarter hams.
Lazy people that don't want to learn anything will stay on CB and die in
shoot-outs with each other in shopping mall parking lots which will help
clean up the CB band. To me it looks like a Win Win situation. What do
you think?
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
>Lazy people that don't want to learn anything will stay on CB and die in
>shoot-outs with each other in shopping mall parking lots which will help
>clean up the CB band. To me it looks like a Win Win situation. What do
>you think?
I think you are one sick fuck sc
>
>SC
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Denny
Slow Code
news:2nh7i21qdu0rbet7v...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:17:24 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>
> i think your logic is faulty. raising the code speed is just as
> likely to reduce the overall numbers of amateurs, maybe to the point
> that our service becomes extinct. i don't see any relationship
> between an increased code speed requirement and hams studying more
> theory.
>
> while it may be true that individuals who want neither to learn code
> or theory for a ham ticket will remain on CB, to paint all CB'ers with
> that brush is wrong. some CB'ers enjoy that band. i've had my ham
> ticket for over 25 years now and still find CB useful when we're out
> on one of our RV trips.
>
> and don't assume that because someone has a ham ticket that they
> suddenly undergo some sort of personality change. there are persons
> holding ham tickets that are just as dopey and prone to doing all
> sorts of illegal and dangerous things. we've all read about them.
> the latest one i recall is the ham that recently received a prison
> sentence for his ongoing jamming operations.
>
> 73,
> rich, n9dko
Yes, Some people are lazy and as long as there is a CW requirement they
won't go for a ham license, or upgrade beyond tech. They don't really want
to be hams enough to put out an effort to be one, but the ones that go for
the CW and written exams really want to be hams, and will stick with the
service and will be an important part of keeping it going.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
When you going to pay your debt
james
>+++Rich <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>+++news:2nh7i21qdu0rbet7v...@4ax.com:
>+++
>+++> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:17:24 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>+++>
>+++>>
>+++>>If we raise the CW speed to 20 WPM for all classes including the Tech
>+++>>class, hams will tend to study the theory more while they build up their
>+++>>code skill and they will understand the theory better and won't need to
>+++>>ask silly questions. So increasing the speed requirement will get us
>+++>>better & smarter hams.
>+++>>
>+++>>Lazy people that don't want to learn anything will stay on CB and die in
>+++>>shoot-outs with each other in shopping mall parking lots which will help
>+++>>clean up the CB band. To me it looks like a Win Win situation. What do
>+++>>you think?
>+++>>
>+++>>SC
>+++>
>+++> i think your logic is faulty. raising the code speed is just as
>+++> likely to reduce the overall numbers of amateurs, maybe to the point
>+++> that our service becomes extinct. i don't see any relationship
>+++> between an increased code speed requirement and hams studying more
>+++> theory.
>+++>
>+++> while it may be true that individuals who want neither to learn code
>+++> or theory for a ham ticket will remain on CB, to paint all CB'ers with
>+++> that brush is wrong. some CB'ers enjoy that band. i've had my ham
>+++> ticket for over 25 years now and still find CB useful when we're out
>+++> on one of our RV trips.
>+++>
>+++> and don't assume that because someone has a ham ticket that they
>+++> suddenly undergo some sort of personality change. there are persons
>+++> holding ham tickets that are just as dopey and prone to doing all
>+++> sorts of illegal and dangerous things. we've all read about them.
>+++> the latest one i recall is the ham that recently received a prison
>+++> sentence for his ongoing jamming operations.
>+++>
>+++> 73,
>+++> rich, n9dko
>+++
>+++
>+++Yes, Some people are lazy and as long as there is a CW requirement they
>+++won't go for a ham license, or upgrade beyond tech. They don't really want
>+++to be hams enough to put out an effort to be one, but the ones that go for
>+++the CW and written exams really want to be hams, and will stick with the
>+++service and will be an important part of keeping it going.
>+++
>+++SC
>+++
*********
And how is being proficient in a an archaic and simple means of
communication become the standard bearer for what is supposed to be
the difference between good and bad operators?
james
Fred G.
news:vmfdi2hu8qo5u94ph...@4ax.com...
Neither the Code NOR Theory tests will weed out the bad radio operator any
more than a driving test will weed out the DUIs - OR - the Physical agility,
legal and other exams will weed out bad cops. Those tests are only tests of
"Proficiency" in the subject matter - NOT - "Mentality". Those tests won't
stop the trash.
But those who choose to not learn code will continue to bitch about why they
shouldn't. OK, DROP the code........Next you'll want the "Theory" taken away
too. Want to bet?
Fred G.
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
how much you want to bet on the propositon that NCI do not advoacte
the ending of written in say the next 10 years?
>
>Fred G.
U-Know-Who
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:o4DUg.6585$o71....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think you're an idiot, just as the rest of the amateur community does.
HTH
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
a rare moment Tom we find ourselves in complete agreement
Indeed Isuspect even SC find his postion desperate after all that is
good reason for him to avoid using his real name or call
>
>HTH
Slow Code
news:4brci2pq3dbaiirh8...@4ax.com:
> If he does have a call why is he so ashamed to give it to us?
> There must be a reason.
You don't need to know my callsign, all you need to know is that CW makes
for more skilled amateurs and that's why we need to retain the
requirement. CW also works a little as a filter to keep the sick, lame
and Lazy off HF. We need to bring back the CW requirement for Techs so we
can raise the intelligence level of conversations on the repeaters.
SC
Slow Code
news:BBAVg.43662$DU3....@tornado.texas.rr.com:
You're just lazy.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
>john <jo...@nospam.net> wrote in
>news:4brci2pq3dbaiirh8...@4ax.com:
>
>> If he does have a call why is he so ashamed to give it to us?
>> There must be a reason.
>
>
>You don't need to know my callsign,
meaning you are afraid to give it
when you going to stop welching on your bets SC?
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
U-Know-Who
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
Or conversely, just dumb it down to your level so that you can understand.
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
his objection is eleimating the stupid parts of the current license
thereby smarting it up
james
wrote:
>+++Neither the Code NOR Theory tests will weed out the bad radio operator any
>+++more than a driving test will weed out the DUIs - OR - the Physical agility,
>+++legal and other exams will weed out bad cops. Those tests are only tests of
>+++"Proficiency" in the subject matter - NOT - "Mentality". Those tests won't
>+++stop the trash.
>+++But those who choose to not learn code will continue to bitch about why they
>+++shouldn't. OK, DROP the code........Next you'll want the "Theory" taken away
>+++too. Want to bet?
>+++
>+++Fred G.
*******************
Fred
The theory questions even the extra exam is not that difficult. A
decent electronics tech with an AA degree can master that test. In
fact the tests are so dummied down that just about anyone that has the
ability read and comprehend can pass them with the minimal of
coaching. So if you think so highly your "Theory" tests then I hate to
burst your bubble.
Why should proficiency in one means of communication hender operation
in another? I tend to think that those that are very proficient with
morse code tend to spend more of their time with that mode of
communication. Why should there be a limitation on other modes that do
not wish to use that mode? Most hams learn morse code and then forget
it. I have no issue with showing proficiency in a means of
communication to get priviledges. I have no issues with showing a
proficiency with "theory" as a means of priviledges.
The thing here is usage of the airwaves is a priviledge and not a
right. So what ever the government cares to do in this avenue is fine
with me. I will take advantage of what ever they offer me.
james
an old friend
and in stating that you just used the Consitution of the USA as toilet
paper
it is just that simple
the govt officail to regulate radio would derive from the "Nessary and
proper clause" the ITU treaty under the supremacy clause and the rest
to US (or the staes how are then exclude from radio regulation by the
ITU treay)
in partical the Govt has one other source of power over radio a(and
anything else they should not have) the willing of citizens to lie and
take it
The Govt had the power (and legal duty) to do code testing till 2003
when the treaty changed
the FCC has conceeded its intent we are waiting on them to push the
paper
Fred G.
James,
Rethink what I wrote. I'm not claiming the tests are "all that"........ You
are right, they ARE dummied down and NO, you do NOT need an AA degree to
pass the Extra. Just some diligent studying. I was merely saying NEITHER
test will eliminate the crap - for starters. BUT those who "are" whining
about the code - if they get their wish, will then want the written exam
dropped too. In other words - FREE - uninhibited passage. IF we gave Drs',
Lawyers, Drivers, Pilots and other licenses away like some want the Ham
licenses handed out, where would we be? Ham radio may not be all that, but
it is what it is. Anything more stripped away from it - and it won't be
worth having.
"I" had to learn the code, it really is no big deal. Do I use it? Not much,
but I'm still glad I learned it. It was a matter of self discipline. Hey,
drop the code......Who am "I" to force it down anyone's throat? That isn't
my aim or argument. Again - you're going to see the push for the rest to be
dropped too - some just aren't satisfied. Mark my words.
Fred G.
William
Slow Code wrote:
> If we raise the CW speed to 20 WPM for all classes...
Slow, that's all well and good, but how do we get rid of you and your
cross-posting to RRAA?
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
sadly the only I know I know is ilegeal and a bit extreme . it is
called homocide
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
>"james" <geo...@washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:f7afi2hs7dbp1hbjp...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:52:24 -0400, "Fred G." <Rad...@rmylife.com>
>> wrote:
>> james
>
>James,
>
>Rethink what I wrote. I'm not claiming the tests are "all that"........ You
>are right, they ARE dummied down and NO, you do NOT need an AA degree to
>pass the Extra. Just some diligent studying. I was merely saying NEITHER
>test will eliminate the crap - for starters. BUT those who "are" whining
>about the code - if they get their wish, will then want the written exam
>dropped too. In other words - FREE - uninhibited passage. IF we gave Drs',
>Lawyers, Drivers, Pilots and other licenses away like some want the Ham
>licenses handed out, where would we be? Ham radio may not be all that, but
>it is what it is. Anything more stripped away from it - and it won't be
>worth having.
>
>"I" had to learn the code, it really is no big deal.
to you that is the case I spend 5 years on and never got a novice
license that I call a big deal
> Do I use it? Not much,
>but I'm still glad I learned it. It was a matter of self discipline. Hey,
>drop the code......Who am "I" to force it down anyone's throat? That isn't
>my aim or argument. Again - you're going to see the push for the rest to be
>dropped too - some just aren't satisfied. Mark my words.
duely marked but exactly who do you think is going to push for this?
personaly I will push to cponsolate down the number of classes which
will reduce the number of tests of course and since there will not be
as amny defferent set of band edges the number of question wiull
certainly drop further
but the only people claiming the written test will are those insistign
the code test should should not die
>
>Fred G.
james
wrote:
>+++James,
>+++
>+++Rethink what I wrote. I'm not claiming the tests are "all that"........ You
>+++are right, they ARE dummied down and NO, you do NOT need an AA degree to
>+++pass the Extra. Just some diligent studying. I was merely saying NEITHER
>+++test will eliminate the crap - for starters. BUT those who "are" whining
>+++about the code - if they get their wish, will then want the written exam
>+++dropped too. In other words - FREE - uninhibited passage. IF we gave Drs',
>+++Lawyers, Drivers, Pilots and other licenses away like some want the Ham
>+++licenses handed out, where would we be? Ham radio may not be all that, but
>+++it is what it is. Anything more stripped away from it - and it won't be
>+++worth having.
>+++
>+++"I" had to learn the code, it really is no big deal. Do I use it? Not much,
>+++but I'm still glad I learned it. It was a matter of self discipline. Hey,
>+++drop the code......Who am "I" to force it down anyone's throat? That isn't
>+++my aim or argument. Again - you're going to see the push for the rest to be
>+++dropped too - some just aren't satisfied. Mark my words.
>+++
>+++Fred G.
I read your post and understood it. My beleifs is that those that will
complain about a "theory" test are those that want the license handed
to them. They don't want any kind of test. Unless the government does
that, I still hold that some form of written test is applicable.
I learned enough code and then I never touched a key again. Made two
contacts total via morse code. Never cared for it and never intend to
use it. At the time my interests were more in VHF/UHF anyways. HF was
to much like CB. He who had the biggest amp and antenna was heard.
VHF/UHF systems require more than a big amp and a big antenna.
I whined about the code requirements and still do. But I also
understand, that what ever the government determines as the standard
for obtain levels oflicensing are the rules that I ahve to play with.
As I stated I have no issues with levels of "theory". That part to me
is easier to learn.
james
Slow Code
news:idDVg.43706$DU3....@tornado.texas.rr.com:
Dumbing it down to my level would still keep it out of your reach.
How's the skip on 11 meters today?
SC
Slow Code
news:f7afi2hs7dbp1hbjp...@4ax.com:
You raise some good points Jim. That's why I've always proposed the
following licensing changes:
1: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
pass all elements required for their license class.
2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.
3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.
4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.
SC
William
Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2006 13:25:08 -0700, "William" <billy...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Slow Code wrote:
> >
> >> If we raise the CW speed to 20 WPM for all classes...
> >
> >Slow, that's all well and good, but how do we get rid of you and your
> >cross-posting to RRAA?
> sadly the only I know I know is ilegeal and a bit extreme . it is
> called homocide
He could do the honorable thing and drive himself into the river on his
way home from work. It'll look like an accident, and his familly will
get to collect the insurance.
james
>+++james <geo...@washington.edu> wrote in
>+++news:f7afi2hs7dbp1hbjp...@4ax.com:
>+++
>+++> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:52:24 -0400, "Fred G." <Rad...@rmylife.com>
>+++> wrote:
>+++>
>+++>>+++Neither the Code NOR Theory tests will weed out the bad radio
>+++>>operator any +++more than a driving test will weed out the DUIs - OR -
>+++>>the Physical agility, +++legal and other exams will weed out bad cops.
>+++>>Those tests are only tests of +++"Proficiency" in the subject matter -
>+++>>NOT - "Mentality". Those tests won't +++stop the trash.
>+++>>+++But those who choose to not learn code will continue to bitch about
>+++>>why they +++shouldn't. OK, DROP the code........Next you'll want the
>+++>>"Theory" taken away +++too. Want to bet?
>+++>>+++
>+++>>+++Fred G.
>+++> *******************
>+++>
>+++> Fred
>+++>
>+++> The theory questions even the extra exam is not that difficult. A
>+++> decent electronics tech with an AA degree can master that test. In
>+++> fact the tests are so dummied down that just about anyone that has the
>+++> ability read and comprehend can pass them with the minimal of
>+++> coaching. So if you think so highly your "Theory" tests then I hate to
>+++> burst your bubble.
>+++>
>+++> Why should proficiency in one means of communication hender operation
>+++> in another? I tend to think that those that are very proficient with
>+++> morse code tend to spend more of their time with that mode of
>+++> communication. Why should there be a limitation on other modes that do
>+++> not wish to use that mode? Most hams learn morse code and then forget
>+++> it. I have no issue with showing proficiency in a means of
>+++> communication to get priviledges. I have no issues with showing a
>+++> proficiency with "theory" as a means of priviledges.
>+++>
>+++> The thing here is usage of the airwaves is a priviledge and not a
>+++> right. So what ever the government cares to do in this avenue is fine
>+++> with me. I will take advantage of what ever they offer me.
>+++>
>+++> james
>+++
>+++
>+++You raise some good points Jim. That's why I've always proposed the
>+++following licensing changes:
>+++
>+++
>+++1: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
>+++ pass all elements required for their license class.
>+++
**************
Why retest knowledge? Not necessary unless your intention is to reduce
the ranks of the amatuer radio service. Few if any government
priviledges require constant retesting for renewal. Your thinking is
not logical.Besides it increases the government and costs. The
government would then be forced to charge for licensing.
>+++2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.
>+++
*****************
Again 70% is sufficient. Raising to the limit you suggest is more a
weed out than anything else.
>+++3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.
>+++
************
The ITU no longer requires CW for any of its commercial services. Why
do you stillinsist on such high levels. Again your motive appears to
be more selective as to who may be granted a license.
>+++4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.
Why? when this class already has very strong restrictive priviledges.
This would not be the incentive to upgrade to a higher license. Some
maybe satisfied with the priviledges of this class and making it a one
year nonrenewable will not be the incentice to an upgrade path.
Instead it will be another step in restricting any growth in the
amature radiio service. Then again if you prefer dwindling numbers,
go ahead. Radio and its associated costs can not compete with the
internet. If I want to talk to some one in Australia it is now far
easier to use IRC or other messaging programs in conjuction with the
internet. If you intend to further restrict the amature service to
nothing more than a "good ole boys club", then you yourself have
become the problem.
james
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
fuuny I could reach down to your level
>
>How's the skip on 11 meters today?
>
>SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
aman could do that Slow Code can't
U-Know-Who
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
Fuck the code only shit. Why should that be the only element? Why not make
all amateurs retest in ALL modes, at all frequencies, et al. And what the
hell, while we're at it, let's just go ahead and make it yearly. Don't let
the old geezers off so easily. When a new mode is adopted, or allowed, make
those bastards show proficiency there as well. That should just about do the
ARS in. Why should you have it your way, SC?
U-Know-Who
Well said. SC and his ilk are what is wrong with the ARS today. But hell,
who knows when I will need morse to facilitate my rescue from a capsized
cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico. I will be the one! No one will know there
are really people inside the ship, unless of course, I pound the hammer I
had with me on the inside of the hull. And to boot, the Coast Guard no
longer teaches morse, so hopefully SC will be there to copy.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Slow Code
news:1160252708.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
We're rebuilding RRAP. We need to alert internet hams that we are getting
general amateur radio and policy threads going again there. Many of the
good hams on usenet left RRAP when Mark Morgan, and Roger Wiseman polluted
the group, but discussions have started there again. Cross-posting will
end in earnest once good hams move back into RRAP, and the riff-raff like
KB9RQZ, AB8MQ and N0VFP move out.
Looking forward to more policy and pro-CW discussions with all you fine
hams. :)
73, and good luck in the contest.
de Slow Code
Slow Code
news:o6dgi258e9r779ne1...@4ax.com:
Could you pass all the tests again today, or would you have to study a
little first? My arguement has always been for the quality of licensees,
not the quantity of them.
>>+++2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.
>>+++
> *****************
>
> Again 70% is sufficient. Raising to the limit you suggest is more a
> weed out than anything else.
Requiring an 85% passing score means more study before taking the exams,
which translate to a better understanding of the material. My arguement
has always been for the quality of licensees, not the quantity of them.
>>+++3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.
>>+++
> ************
>
> The ITU no longer requires CW for any of its commercial services. Why
> do you stillinsist on such high levels. Again your motive appears to
> be more selective as to who may be granted a license.
Hams should be skillfull. Proficency at CW gives hams a way to
communicate, when no other way might be possible.
>>+++4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.
>
> Why? when this class already has very strong restrictive priviledges.
> This would not be the incentive to upgrade to a higher license. Some
> maybe satisfied with the priviledges of this class and making it a one
> year nonrenewable will not be the incentice to an upgrade path.
Requiring future study in order to continue to be licensed will make for
more knowledgable hams. They will be assets. A national resource. My
arguement has always been for the quality of licensees, not the quantity
of them.
> Instead it will be another step in restricting any growth in the
> amature radiio service. Then again if you prefer dwindling numbers,
> go ahead. Radio and its associated costs can not compete with the
> internet. If I want to talk to some one in Australia it is now far
> easier to use IRC or other messaging programs in conjuction with the
> internet. If you intend to further restrict the amature service to
> nothing more than a "good ole boys club", then you yourself have
> become the problem.
Everyone is welcome in the "good-ole-boy" club if they're not lazy and are
willing to learn. If not, there's always CB for them. My arguement has
always been for the quality of licensees, not the quantity of them.
Having to work a little to get/gain something gives a little sense of
pride in the accomplishment and you appreciate it and take care of it.
It's valuable.
Getting handed something for nothing cheapens it. Don't cheapen ham
radio. Rigs don't come with kill-filters to notch out bad ops and lids,
so let's support policy that minimizes the number of lids on the bands.
SC
Slow Code
news:aD_Vg.16385$5o5...@tornado.texas.rr.com:
It's hilarious watching you CB'ers whine about CW. Well don't worry, it
looks like the FCC is going to give you your dumbed down licenses.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
>"William" <billy...@juno.com> wrote in
>news:1160252708.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Slow Code wrote:
>>
>>> If we raise the CW speed to 20 WPM for all classes...
>>
>> Slow, that's all well and good, but how do we get rid of you and your
>> cross-posting to RRAA?
>
>
>We're rebuilding RRAP.
when are you leaving
Slow Code
news:1160528893.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Slow Code wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in
>> news:1160444791.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > Slow Code wrote:
>> >> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in
>> >> news:1160355034.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Slow Code wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Could you pass all the tests again today, or would you have to
>> >> >> study a little first?
>> >> >
>> >> > I could pass them all again, no study needed. And that goes for
>> >> > written, Morse Code receiving and Morse Code sending.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bring out any FCC amateur radio license test from Novice to Extra,
>> >> > from any time since I first got my license in 1967, and I'll pass
>> >> > it. I'll probably even be able to pass tests from long before I
>> >> > was licensed, too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Every so often I try an online practice exam, just to be sure. No
>> >> > problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > BUT
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't see any reason to require routine retesting of hams who
>> >> > haven't broken the rules. FCC trusts us to keep current - that's
>> >> > part of the "conditions of grant".
>> >> >
>> >> > FCC currently uses retesting as a sort of enforcement tool - if
>> >> > someone acts like they don't know what the rules are, or if there
>> >> > is some doubt as to whether a test session was on the up-and-up,
>> >> > FCC will sometimes require a specific retest.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you demand that all hams be retested, what you're telling FCC
>> >> > is that we cannot be trusted to keep up with the rules. Is that a
>> >> > good thing?
>> >> >
>> >> > FCC doesn't require routine retesting of commercial licenses - why
>> >> > should they require it of amateurs?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Everything has been dumbed down, not just ham licenses.
>> >
>> > I don't think so.
>> >
>> >> We can't have
>> >> skills anymore in america, everyone has to be equal.
>> >
>> > Where do you get that idea?
>> >
>> > Equality of opportunity, yes. That's not the same thing as equality
>> > of result.
>> >
>> >>That's what happens
>> >> when liberals get to make & change policy. Too many liberals in
>> >> government.
>> >>
>> > Either you don't know your history, or you've got some weird
>> > definition of "liberal".
>> >
>> > For example:
>> >
>> > Were JFK and LBJ "liberals"? It was under their administrations that
>> > we got the rules changes known as "incentive licensing".
>> >
>> > Were Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush "liberals"? It was under
>> > their administrations that we got:
>> >
>> > - FCC exams replaced by VEC exams
>> >
>> > - Openly published question pools
>> >
>> > - End of Morse Code sending test
>> >
>> > - General/Tech written test split in two parts so that Techs did not
>> > have same written as Generals
>> >
>> > - Medical waivers for 13 and 20 wpm code tests (Bush "asked" FCC for
>> > this directly, as a favor to a King that was a ham)
>> >
>> > - Technician lost its code test
>> >
>> > Is George "Dubya" Bush a "liberal"? Under his administration, we got:
>> >
>> > - FCC support for BPL
>> >
>> > - ITU treaty changed to eliminate wording requiring code test.
>> >
>> > - NPRM proposing complete elimination of code test
>> >
>> > Now - are all those folks reducing the requirements "liberals"?
>>
>>
>> It's the state of that nation.
>
> Which nation?
>
>> Everyone's got to have their handout.
>> Outcome based licensing. Can't have both quality and quantity anymore.
>>
>> SC
>
> You blamed it on "liberals". But look at who was in charge when all
> those reductions in requirements came about.
I emailed President Bush he should kick out all the Bill Clinton Liberals
in the FCC after he got elected, but he didn't. I can't blame him though
because he choose to tackle the terrorist mess Bill Clintoon left the
country instead. I feel a lot safer now than I did under Clinton, and the
economy is better too.
I just wish all you people would take a stand against dumbing things down
any further. If it continues, it going to make hams irrelevant and our
bands will sound like CB.
SC
Rockinghorse Winner
code skill and they will understand the theory better and won't need to
There are no silly questions, really. I mean no one is born knowing
stuff. If you don't ask how will you ever know?
NY6P, Lee
--
god bless
Opus-
thusly:
>I just wish all you people would take a stand against dumbing things down
>any further. If it continues, it going to make hams irrelevant and our
>bands will sound like CB.
Right now, CB is totally dead. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Behavior like yours will push ham that way too. Who wants to be
associated with the likes of you?
--
Opu...@gmail.com
(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)
"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman
Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.
Slow Code
news:7c9ri21p136061hha...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:00:57 GMT, Blow a Toad <my....@no.spam> spake
> thusly:
>
>
>>I just wish all you people would take a stand against dumbing things
>>down any further. If it continues, it going to make hams irrelevant and
>>our bands will sound like CB.
>
> Right now, CB is totally dead. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
>
> Behavior like yours will push ham that way too. Who wants to be
> associated with the likes of you?
Everyone that desires to be a good ham and valuable asset to the radio
service and to their country do.
Now how's your CW practice coming along? Are you practicing or did you
decide to pack it in and just talk on a mic like other lazy KKKanadians.
Eh?
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
clean up ham radio SC start by truning in your license
>
>SC
The Duce
new radio game in town, its called cell phone. Like it or not anyone can get
a license to use them.
I've been in ham radio for over 30 years. The same discussion is going on
today as was when I first started. It has never been settled and never will
to satisfy all. Equipment prices will skyrocket as the number of hams
continues to decline. In fact they already have. I laugh when I see radio's
like an IC-706 that someone is trying to sell on Ebay for $900 plus when
only a few years ago new ones were being had at Hamvention under $600. Radio
is dying folks enjoy it while the government allows us to have it. There is
no "use" for all the Techs anymore.Allthis brainpower should be put together
to find a use for your existence instead of continually hashing the same old
dead beaten horse.
<Ma...@kb9rqz.net> wrote in message
news:uroti2dv2kcafauen...@4ax.com...
honestjohn
"The Duce" <Double...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S105h.8005$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> The test will continue to dumb down because ham radio is dying. There's a
> new radio game in town, its called cell phone. Like it or not anyone can
get
> a license to use them.
>
> I've been in ham radio for over 30 years. The same discussion is going on
> today as was when I first started. It has never been settled and never
will
> to satisfy all. Equipment prices will skyrocket as the number of hams
> continues to decline. In fact they already have. I laugh when I see
radio's
> like an IC-706 that someone is trying to sell on Ebay for $900 plus when
> only a few years ago new ones were being had at Hamvention under $600.
Radio
> is dying folks enjoy it while the government allows us to have it. There
is
> no "use" for all the Techs anymore.Allthis brainpower should be put
together
> to find a use for your existence instead of continually hashing the same
old
> dead beaten horse.
>
have a wireless broadband set-up and the individual cops will carry around a
wireless link device to communicate to the computer in their car and that
will be "THE END" for scanners!
The handwriting is on the wall!
HJ
John Smith
Hey, you just stole that idea from "Chicken Little!"
JS
honestjohn
"John Smith" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Hey, you just stole that idea from "Chicken Little!"
>
Mr. Little happens to be a friend of mine.
H.J.
John Smith
HJ:
Obviously, you are both proponents of "Realistic Philosophy!" And, I do
admit, such thinking does provide one with an explanation as to where
these chunks of matter, which keep landing on my head, are coming from!
<straight-face> I accept such until a better explanation comes forth...
JS
honestjohn
"John Smith" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>such thinking does provide one with an explanation as to where
> these chunks of matter, which keep landing on my head, are coming from!
> <straight-face> I accept such until a better explanation comes forth...
>
> JS
Now, don't you feel better for admitting that?
HJ
John Smith
>
> Now, don't you feel better for admitting that?
>
> HJ
>
>
BELIEVE!
JS
honestjohn
HJ
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<Double...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The test will continue to dumb down because ham radio is dying. There's a
>new radio game in town, its called cell phone. Like it or not anyone can get
>a license to use them.
>
funny how nobody is proposing to "dumb" anything donw
or remove anything that skill of which demostrates inteligence ata ll