ARRL Life Membership
Rasta567
ARRL. Thanks
Keith Wood
Rasta567 wrote:
>
> Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life Member of the
> ARRL. Thanks
Well, they can't raise membership rates on you -- the only way to get
more money per year of your membership is to kill you.
Brian Kelly
Rasta567 wrote:
> Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life Member of the
> ARRL. Thanks
>
Over a long period one can save a huge number of dollars for dues. I forget
when life memberships became available, 1970 or so?? Dunno. I think the
original cost of a life membership was around $150. If those numbers are in the
ballpark a ham who bought a life membership in 1970 paid roughly $4.83 per year
this year and it keeps getting lower the longer he's a member. In the limit it
becomes essentially free. Depends on whether ya wanna grunt now and buy one as
a long-term investment. Very long term.
>
w3rv
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
<20010123230419...@ng-fg1.aol.com>:
>Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life Member of
>the ARRL. Thanks
>
Don't buy any form of League membership if you care about the integrity
of your license or ham radio. The ARRL will screw you when your head is
turned. Buy a membership only if you believe that the natural progression
of amateur radio should be to become more like CB, for this is what the
ARRL board of directors believe.
The ARRL isn't working to improve anything. They say they're working to
protect your service but then they propose limp-wristed policy changes and
watch the service rot from within.
If you want to save ham radio, then cancel your League membership as
soon as possible if you have one. Don't be a part of the Leagues plan to
furthur dumb-down ham radio and don't support their slight-of-hand policy
changes which welcome ignorant operators and CB style operating practices.
GAR GARIGUE
KI3R
Ed G.
>>Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life Member of
>>the ARRL. Thanks
Please don't pay any attention to the rantings from Vince. He
apparently has a beef with ARRL. While the ARRL's policies may not be
agreeable to every ham, they are the only organization with any clout to
stand between the amateur community and the FCC and a Spectrum hungry
Congress that would love to sell off our frequencies to business users..
As for benefits to becoming a life member, kinda depends on your motives
and your age. If you're young, it's probably fiscally prudent. If you
wish to support the ARRL and its objectives, that would be good too.
Ed WB6SAT
W1RFI
>You don't get bothered 4 months before your subcription is up.
What would bother me is if they didn't ask me to renew until 4 months AFTER my
subscription was up. :-)
Actually, the other magazines to which I subscribe have about the same time
frame. If everybody else gave you 4 months to pay a bill, would you call it a
bother? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
I believe the majority of his current disagreement is that he is not pleased
with ARRL's position wrt restructuring (4 classes of license, 0, 5,12,12 wpm,
and asking that more comprehensive written exams be given.)
>As for benefits to becoming a life member, kinda depends on your motives
>and your age.
I think I can address what may have been the original question. Life members do
not receive benefits that are any better or different than annual-paying
members. It can be an investment in the future for some, a way of not having
to bother renewing every year for others and a "contribution" to ARRL by
others. The League does invest the life-member dues, to ensure that it is not
building a house of cards. That life-member who joined for $125 back when $125
was a lot of money is still being funded from the way that investment has
grown.
Do the math, consider your options and if you want to join the League, do it in
the way that is best for you.
See http://www.arrl.org/join.html for info on dues and life membership.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Paul McCarron
sure lost money on me!!!
Paul W1IY
Aaron Jones
ARRL will now notify you by email at renewal time
and allow you to re-up online...
Larry Roll K3LT
(Rasta567) writes:
>
>Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life Member of the
>ARRL. Thanks
Simple. It's a hedge against future membership dues increases,
like the one the ARRL Board of Directors just approved. I wish I'd
invested in a Life Membership 20 years ago!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
Keith:
Shhhhh! Ixnay on the illkay talk -- or the next thing you know, the
League will be sending out "hit squads" to terminate Life Members
en masse!
I remember giving serious thought to a Life Membership 20 years
ago, shortly after I joined. However, my car insurance premium was
due...and I had to prioritize. Well, I've been thinking about it again,
but guess what came in the mail today? You guessed it -- my
car insurance premium notice!
73 de Larry, K3LT
W1RFI
>I have been a life member since it's inception, some 30+?? years ago. They
>sure lost money on me!!!
Not so, Paul, ARRL maintains an investment folio that is funded, in part, by
the Life Membership dues it has taken in over the decades. While I am not at
all sure of the exact relationship between the folio and LM dues, it is pretty
clear that without those prepaid memberships, the money would not be there.
The proceeds for the investments serve both to keep the investments growing to
match or exceed inflation and as part of the annual operating costs of the
League.
When you shelled out those beans so many years ago, that was a chunk of change,
indeed. You could have invested it yourself and used the proceeds to pay your
annual dues, just like ARRL is doing. In that sense, you have indeed paid and
shouldn't see yourself as a money loser at all.
If the League were to spend LM investments in the year they are received, it
would make the budgeting process a bit easier, but they would be building a
house of cards that would soon tumble down. They have been fiscally responsible
with Life Memberships, IMHO.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Aaron Jones
>ARRL maintains an investment folio that is funded, in part, by
>the Life Membership dues it has taken in over the decades.
Also, Life Membership is a great marketing tool. The League has a nice
captive audience in life members for advertising. Those lifetime
eyeballs are worth $$$ ... :-)
Dick Carroll
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote:
>
> rast...@aol.com (Rasta567) wrote in
> <20010123230419...@ng-fg1.aol.com>:
>
> >Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life Member of
> >the ARRL. Thanks
> >
>
> Don't buy any form of League membership if you care about the integrity
> of your license or ham radio. The ARRL will screw you when your head is
> turned. Buy a membership only if you believe that the natural progression
> of amateur radio should be to become more like CB, for this is what the
> ARRL board of directors believe.
Vince,that's what the current FCC believes. Why would the ARRL
deliberately -again- go against the wishes of the FCC? It never worked
before.
Dick
Phil Kane
>Not so, Paul, ARRL maintains an investment folio that is funded, in part, by
>the Life Membership dues it has taken in over the decades. While I am not at
>all sure of the exact relationship between the folio and LM dues, it is pretty
>clear that without those prepaid memberships, the money would not be there.
>The proceeds for the investments serve both to keep the investments growing to
>match or exceed inflation and as part of the annual operating costs of the
>League.
>When you shelled out those beans so many years ago, that was a chunk of change,
>indeed. You could have invested it yourself and used the proceeds to pay your
>annual dues, just like ARRL is doing. In that sense, you have indeed paid and
>shouldn't see yourself as a money loser at all.
IIRC the Life Membership fee was 20 times the annual membership
when I signed up. That's self-maintaing if the investment
earns 5% annual interest. Some years it can, other years it's
more difficult.
--
73 de Phil Kane - K2ASP
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
<Xns9033A308FF9A...@127.0.0.1>:
>While the ARRL's policies may not be
>agreeable to every ham, they are the only organization with any clout
>to stand between the amateur community and the FCC and a Spectrum
>hungry Congress that would love to sell off our frequencies to business
>users..
> Ed WB6SAT
>
The ARRL says they're trying to protect spectrum, true, but their own
dumbed-down licensing & limp-wristed policy proposals will make it more
and more difficult for them to do so, because how can they successfully
defend amateur spectrum when its users are increasingly becoming as dumb
as a post and as useless as CB'ers? Soon, there won't be anything good
left to defend. What words can the ARRL use to convince the FCC or
Congress that the spectrum is best left to poor operators with bad
operating habits? The scenario is akin to a FLY defending a Dung-Heap
(ARRL being the fly), they're trying to defend a service that
progressively gets stinkier with every new policy they propose. If the
ARRL wants to defend amateur radio, let them propose improving licensing
standards. The high merits, integrity, and abilities of spectrum users is
what will protect the spectrum best and will provide a pool of quality
radio operators for service to the country when needed. Real Value!
I'd still be a league member today, maybe even a life member, but the
ARRL screwed up when it went against it's long held principles and the
founding purposes amateur radio was built on.
K0HB
vlfi...@mcn.net (Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL) wrote:
> ..... long held principles and the
> founding purposes amateur radio was built on.
Mostly the early amateurs that "amateur radio was built on" were a
bunch of unruly rascals who roamed the spectrum at will, interfering
with commercial and military stations alike, and had to be rounded up
and corralled at "200 meters and below". Far worse than today's CB
crowd by a long shot!
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"We are fellow travelers on a journey between two
eternities, and it's a trip far too brief for me
to be concerned about your speed at the Code of
Morse."
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Cecil
> The ARRL says they're trying to protect spectrum, true, but their own
> dumbed-down licensing & limp-wristed policy proposals will make it more
> and more difficult for them to do so, because how can they successfully
> defend amateur spectrum when its users are increasingly becoming as dumb
> as a post and as useless as CB'ers?
That's certainly easier to defend than the 'no users' scenario.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Rev. John Ryding
the code requirement reduced or removed, the League was seen as a bunch of old
fogies who wanted nothing better than to keep out anyone unable to copy code.
Now that the licensing structure appears to have favored the no-code crowd, the
opposition thinks the League is at fault.
If you want to change the League, join and vote. If you are not a member, quit
complaining. The only reason I'm not a life member is the cost. I should have
become a life member as soon as I was licensed in 1977. It would have paid for
itself several times now.
Join the League or not. But the issue of licensing and code requirements are
not decisions they make. The ARRL is the most vocal representation we, as
amateurs and others, have with respect to hobby radio. If not for the League,
only commercial interests would be heard by the FCC.
My opinion. I apologize to the newsgroup for wasting space where I would
rather read posts swapping gear.
John Ryding
WW0H - ww...@arrl.net
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL <vlfi...@mcn.net> wrote:
> If the ARRL wants to defend amateur radio, let them propose improving
licensing
> standards.
In its comments to the FCC wrt restructuring, the ARRL you espouse so
strongly asked the FCC to increase the technical content of the written
exams to offset any changes in Morse-code testing.
> The high merits, integrity, and abilities of spectrum users is
> what will protect the spectrum best and will provide a pool of quality
> radio operators for service to the country when needed. Real Value!
The ARRL has been steadily improving its Tech Info pages on the Web, has
changed QST to offer material to help the newcomer learn the ropes, has
started an Educational and Certification program, all intended to help hams
be better hams and better fulfill the goals of the Service.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Brian
yo...@aol.comnospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
> In article <3A6E68AD...@bctv.com>, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com>
writes:
>
> >> Can anybody tell me what are the benefits of becoming a Life
Member of the
> >> ARRL. Thanks
> >
> >Well, they can't raise membership rates on you -- the only way to get
> >more money per year of your membership is to kill you.
>
> Keith:
>
> Shhhhh! Ixnay on the illkay talk -- or the next thing you know, the
> League will be sending out "hit squads" to terminate Life Members
> en masse!
Larry, shhhhh! Ixnay on the "ithay quadsey" talk! Thats why radio
commando MD dropped out of sight. He's on a mission.
Brian
That's why Dick has his lifetime membership in the QCCB (Quarter Century
CB) Club.
Dick Carroll
Are you growing eyes in the back of your head? Gotcher ears on? He may
be close by!
RyanCA
> Mostly the early amateurs that "amateur radio was built on" were a
> bunch of unruly rascals who roamed the spectrum at will, interfering
> with commercial and military stations alike, and had to be rounded up
> and corralled at "200 meters and below". Far worse than today's CB
> crowd by a long shot!
Very gentlemanly though I once heard. Oh Well, they never gave up and survived.
Dean Arthur
along with what the participants are doing.
If you don't like the policies and practices of the incumbents, then get
off your duff and become one of the leadership so you can put forth your
ideas for better ham radio.
Brian
Sulpherous cat gas, Batman, I think Dick is developing a cents of u-mer.
Mike won't be hard to detect. His labored breathing from dragging that
duffel bag full of call signs will give him away.
Brian
yo...@aol.comnospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
You're betting that the ARRL and/or the ARS will be around. You're also
betting that you'll be around.
W1RFI
>
>Mike won't be hard to detect. His labored breathing from dragging that
>duffel bag full of call signs will give him away.
From what I read on the enforcement logs, that duffel bag is probably quite a
bit lighter of late. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>If you don't like the policies and practices of the incumbents, then get
>off your duff and become one of the leadership so you can put forth your
>ideas for better ham radio.
I have seen no small number of occasions where an ARRL elected position does
not have opposition. Of course, running for office and then executing the
duties of that office are usually a LOT more work that not liking what the
other guy is doing. :-) I certainly would not want the responsibilities. I
have found other ways to serve.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Dick Carroll
RyanCA wrote:
>
> K0HB wrote:
>
> > Mostly the early amateurs that "amateur radio was built on" were a
> > bunch of unruly rascals who roamed the spectrum at will, interfering
> > with commercial and military stations alike, and had to be rounded up
> > and corralled at "200 meters and below". Far worse than today's CB
> > crowd by a long shot!
>
> Very gentlemanly though I once heard. Oh Well, they never gave up and survived.
>
I don't think that Hiram P. Maxim would agree that they were an "unruly
bunch".
Every radio signal within range interfered with every other radio
signal in those days of very wideband spark transmitters, very low noisy
frequencies and characteristically poor receive sensitivity,
particularly in many if not most homebrew ham recievers. Certainly the
QRM sure wasn't intentional, just an artifact of the technology and lack
of regulation of the day. As today, hams often transmitted without
realizing that the frequency might have been busy,since they often could
hear only one side of the contact and that when that side was recieving
the frequency would be quiet.
The chaos on radio in those early days can't be laid to the "unruly
hams". It was a part of the evolution of radio communication that hams
had started.
Marconi always considered himself a ham although he never held a ham
radio license.
Dick
Larry Roll K3LT
<w1...@arrl.net> writes:
>
>In its comments to the FCC wrt restructuring, the ARRL you espouse so
>strongly asked the FCC to increase the technical content of the written
>exams to offset any changes in Morse-code testing.
Ed:
All of which makes me axe the musical question -- What does increasing
the technical content of the written exams have to do with testing to
ensure proficiency in a practical, manual communications skill? The
two concepts are not mutually exclusive. So why, then, are supposedly
intelligent and presumably educated people implying that they are?
73 de Larry, K3LT
Brian
I ran a QRZ.com search a couple of weeks ago. Not much is turning up on
him anymore.
W1RFI
> What does increasing the technical content of the written exams
> have to do with testing to ensure proficiency in a practical,
> manual communications skill?
The rationale, if memory serves, is that the ARRL wanted to see the overall
level of difficulty and accomplishment remain the same.
IMHO, the relationship is indirect, at best. OTOH, I believe that testing for
an understanding of the technical fundamentals is more valuable to the Amateur
Radio Service than is testing about Morse code decoding proficiency.
> So why, then, are supposedly intelligent and presumably educated people
> implying that they are?
You tell me, Larry; I am sure if I did a deja search I would find you stating
that Morse code testing is required because the written exams are "easily"
memorized, or otherwise inadequate.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
>Marconi always considered himself a ham although he never held a ham
>radio license.
I think he should have been grandfathered and just given one. I don't think,
however, that his code speed would have been high enough that he could have
been allowed on more than the Tech+ bands on HF.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Larry Roll K3LT
(W1RFI) writes:
>
>>Marconi always considered himself a ham although he never held a ham
>>radio license.
>
>I think he should have been grandfathered and just given one. I don't think,
>however, that his code speed would have been high enough that he could have
>been allowed on more than the Tech+ bands on HF.
Ed:
I think you're thinking about Lee DeForrest. Marconi was a proficient
CW operator. I don't think DeForrest ever knew the Morse code.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
(W1RFI) writes:
>
>> So why, then, are supposedly intelligent and presumably educated people
>> implying that they are?
>
>You tell me, Larry; I am sure if I did a deja search I would find you stating
>that Morse code testing is required because the written exams are "easily"
>memorized, or otherwise inadequate.
Ed:
I'll betcha a lobster dinner you can't! I've never said that there was any
direct relationship between code testing and written exams. I've
*always* said that the two were separate and equally important tests,
and that I supported the updating of the written exams, including a
change from the short-term memorization paradigm now so common
today. However, I've also said that the written exams were appropriate
for an *amateur* radio license examination (emphasis on the word
*amateur* is important). If you can find a quote from me where I
clearly state that the written tests were directly related to, and could
serve as a replacement for the code tests, you've won a second
lobster dinner from me!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Cecil
> I've never said that there was any
> direct relationship between code testing and written exams. I've
"Separate and equal", eh? Why do you consider Morse code skill as
important as everything else in amateur radio combined?
Seems to me Morse code skill may be around 5% of what amateur radio
is all about. Seems Bill's and Ed's idea would work very well if
5% of the written exam was on Morse code skill.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Brian
"Separate but Equal?"
Lemme see, if CW gets 5% of the written, and RTTY gets 5% of the
written, and AM gets 5% of the written, and USB and LSB each get 2.5% of
the written, and SSTV gets 5% of the written, and NBFM gets 5% of the
written, and FSTV gets 5% of the written, and Packet gets 5% of the
written, and psk1 gets 5% of the written, and msk...
We're already at 50% of the exam and haven't touched rules or
authorizations, let alone safety.
Brian
yo...@aol.comnospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
As long as you're not talking about FB Morse. He didn't know dink about
radio. ;)
Cecil
> Lemme see, if CW gets 5% of the written, and RTTY gets 5% of the
> written, and AM gets 5% of the written, and USB and LSB each get 2.5% of
> the written, and SSTV gets 5% of the written, and NBFM gets 5% of the
> written, and FSTV gets 5% of the written, and Packet gets 5% of the
> written, and psk1 gets 5% of the written, and msk...
>
> We're already at 50% of the exam and haven't touched rules or
> authorizations, let alone safety.
Well, I would only allocate 5% to SSB, FM, and CW. The less popular
modes would be allocated less than 5%.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
W1RFI
>Lemme see, if CW gets 5% of the written, and RTTY gets 5% of the
>written, and AM gets 5% of the written . .
>We're already at 50% of the exam and haven't touched rules or
>authorizations, let alone safety.
Do you believe that full-carrier, double-sideband AM and OOK CW using Morse
encoding are both 5% of what ham radio is about? Why would you think a mode
that is operated by only a couple of percent of hams is equal to one that is
used by about 1/3 of hams?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
Brian
I think it is as valid as the "how long does a SSTV image take to
transmit" question. I think Cop McDonald is the only one who knows that
one.
Brian
I thought the idea was to be "equal" with the other modes.
W1RFI
>I thought the idea was to be "equal" with the other modes.
It is. The testing for the other modes is somewhat related to the relative
importance of the mode to amateur radio.
If you think I was saying that all modes must be tested in equal percentages,
you misunderstood.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Dick Carroll
Oh, I don't know. He made a bunch of longrange CW contacts if you
recall. Also as has been belabored here so often, the code test early on
was at 5wpm.
K0HB
Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote:
> Marconi always considered himself a ham although he never held a ham
> radio license.
Lotsa guys like that hanging out just below 10 meters.
73, Hans, K0HB
W1RFI
>Oh, I don't know. He made a bunch of longrange CW contacts if you
>recall. Also as has been belabored here so often, the code test early on
>was at 5wpm.
I didn't mean to imply that he didn't know the code. I don't know if he knew
the code to 20 wpm when he did those early experminents. Seeing as this was
before April 15, 2000, shouldn't he have done them above 50 MHz, where he
belonged? :-)
I have to wonder, if the 5 wpm code test was enough to get Amateur Radio off to
such a flying start (looking at the resultant growth), why is it looked upon
with such disdain by some today?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Len Over 21
(W1RFI) writes:
I'm not sure of the context of these two messages.
Following the thread back, the mention was of Guglielmo Marconi,
alleging that "he considered himself a ham." That is doubtful since
Marconi essentially went to England to set up a profit-making
business out of his radio experiments. He succeeded rather well,
including getting as many patents and licenses-for-manufacture
as he could. Hardly "not for pecuniary reasons."
Marconi got his S back from Poldhu in 1901. Radio back then
was all about SPARK transmission (the Alexanderson Alternator
would not reach its peak until around 1919). The ONLY
practical means of communications over spark-transmitted
radio was by on-off keying codes. On-off keying was the only
practical means of amateur radio communications until the
1930s, regardless of a very, very few amateurs trying out the
newfangled voice and music transmissions using vacuum tubes.
Okay, here we are in the year 2001, three generations removed
from 1935. Radio amateurs are no longer dependent on on-off
keying as the ONLY practical communications...there are
many more modes, nearly all of them more practical than on-off
keying. Why is there still an international standard requiring
administrations to give code cognition tests in order to be
granted a license having below-30-MHz-privileges?
Those who advocate removal of the code test for an amateur
radio license do not view the retention of the code test with
"disdain." It is viewed as unneccesary, archaic, and, in the
case of so many that got rank/status/privilege through that
singular skill, little more than an federally-granted merit
badge. If there is disdain, then it is the disdain of those who
wave that merit badge and badger others with it as some
sort of "superiority" proof.
Were you implying that amateur radio got a "flying start"
because of morse code? That's beggaring a definition
considering that the ONLY mode for amateurs in the
"start" was on-off keying.
Growth in US amateur radio: According to AH0A statistics
the GROWTH occurring in US amateur radio is still due to
the no-code-test Technician licensees at the end of 2000.
didit
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
>>(W1RFI) writes:
>>>From: Dick Carroll di...@townsqr.com
> I'm not sure of the context of these two messages.
Then why waste bandwidth postulating on them?
> Okay, here we are in the year 2001, three generations removed
> from 1935. Radio amateurs are no longer dependent on on-off
> keying as the ONLY practical communications...(SNIP)
We weren't dependent on Morse Code as the "ONLY" practical
communications then.
>...there are
> many more modes, nearly all of them more practical than on-off
> keying. Why is there still an international standard requiring
> administrations to give code cognition tests in order to be
> granted a license having below-30-MHz-privileges?
Because most of the third world countries who, despite having NO
internal communications infrastracture in ANY mode, have the same vote
as those who have technology out the wazoo. Morse Code levels the
playing field for them.
> Those who advocate removal of the code test for an amateur
> radio license do not view the retention of the code test with
> "disdain."
Sure they do. Read the definition of "disdain", Lennie, then flip
back through the pages of Deja and tell me the anti-Code "advocates"
don't "disdain" code testing.
> It is viewed as unneccesary, archaic, and, in the
> case of so many that got rank/status/privilege through that
> singular skill, little more than an federally-granted merit
> badge.
And I teach CPR to people who think what they watched on "Rescue 9-
1-1" was sufficient...until they needed it....
> If there is disdain, then it is the disdain of those who
> wave that merit badge and badger others with it as some
> sort of "superiority" proof.
Lennie trying to make another of "us-versus-them" fights.
> Growth in US amateur radio: According to AH0A statistics
> the GROWTH occurring in US amateur radio is still due to
> the no-code-test Technician licensees at the end of 2000.
But only becuase it is the first rung on the ladder. We've opened
the door, now we have to make them feel at home. You're invited in,
Lennie, but you just keep peeing on the lawn and barking at the moon.
Your loss.
--
http://hometown.aol.com/k4yz/myhomepage/index.html
"The Measure Of A Man Is Not In How He Touches A Woman, But In How He
Touches A Woman's Heart"
W4JLE
signals to start. Later the speed was raised to provide trained operators
for war time use of the military.
The problem today is couched in code speed, code is NOT the problem. The
problem is watching any standard in any part of our life being removed be
cause "I want it" attitudes. Not only are the IWI group never satisfied, but
want to belittle any established rules of life.
It matters not if it is religious, morality, or code. "You" are archaic,
elitist, etc. etc if "Your" values stand in the way of "my" instant desires.
Once we move from the logical to the emotional, there is no easy solution.
We who had to do the code, do not have any real objections to it's removal
for logical reasons, I dam well object to the snot nosed kids that think it
should be removed because "they" think it is just being kept by the old
(insert favorite expletive) who are standing in "their" way.
NCI the Madelyn Murry O'Hare of Amateur radio.
"W1RFI" <w1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010129074325...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Phil Kane
> Because most of the third world countries who, despite having NO
>internal communications infrastracture in ANY mode, have the same vote
>as those who have technology out the wazoo. Morse Code levels the
>playing field for them.
CELLULAR/WIRELESS technology is what's leveling the playing
field for them, bypassing wired and conventional single-channel
and multi-channel communications.
The world moves on...
--
73 de Phil Kane - K2ASP
Cecil
> ... I dam well object to the snot nosed kids that think it
> should be removed because "they" think it is just being kept by the old
> (insert favorite expletive) who are standing in "their" way.
Maybe those snot nosed kids consider your attitude toward Morse
code testing to be an "I Want It!" attitude, the exact attitude
that you condemn in them.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nospam.spam> wrote:
> CELLULAR/WIRELESS technology is what's leveling the playing
> field for them, bypassing wired and conventional single-channel
> and multi-channel communications.
And how many of those countries have you seen from the inside out,
Phil?
How many Afghanii's or Tchadians have cellphones?
Just curious.
Steve, K4YZ
Dick Carroll
K0HB wrote:
>
> In article <94vutn$fo1$0...@208.206.142.105>,
> Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote:
>
> > Marconi always considered himself a ham although he never held a ham
> > radio license.
>
> Lotsa guys like that hanging out just below 10 meters.
>
You equate Freebanders with Marconi? I am not the least surprised
Dick Carroll
To answer a question with a question, why is it that 5wpm code test is
being fought just as hard by the codebashing lazies just as hard as the
20wpm was?
W4JLE
the big people alone.
"Cecil" <Cecil....@IEEE.org> wrote in message
news:3A75DA1E...@IEEE.org...
Brian
K0HB <K0...@arrl.org> wrote:
> In article <94vutn$fo1$0...@208.206.142.105>,
> Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote:
>
> > Marconi always considered himself a ham although he never held a ham
> > radio license.
>
> Lotsa guys like that hanging out just below 10 meters.
>
> 73, Hans, K0HB
You're not telling CB Dick anything new.
Gosh, I hope I'm not equating Dick with Marconi.
Brian
Rick Tannehill
one a month until I renew. I call that harrassment, way beyond bother :)
Rick T.
W7RT
W1RFI wrote:
> >From: GAR GARIGUE gar...@home.com
>
> >You don't get bothered 4 months before your subcription is up.
>
> What would bother me is if they didn't ask me to renew until 4 months AFTER my
> subscription was up. :-)
>
> Actually, the other magazines to which I subscribe have about the same time
> frame. If everybody else gave you 4 months to pay a bill, would you call it a
> bother? :-)
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
Cecil
> To answer a question with a question, why is it that 5wpm code test is
> being fought just as hard by the codebashing lazies just as hard as the
> 20wpm was?
Why should reducing the required speed make an outmoded requirement
any more acceptable? It's like a hazing ritual being reduced from
four licks to one lick.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
K0HB
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ <k4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> How many Afghanii's or Tchadians have cellphones?
Many, many more than have amateur radio! Amateur radio transmissions
are banned by the current government of Afghanistan, and there is only
one active licensee in Chad.
73, Hans, K0HB
--
"We are fellow travelers on a journey between two
eternities, and it's a trip far too brief for me
to be concerned about your speed at the Code of
Morse."
K0HB
Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote:
>
> You equate Freebanders with Marconi?
>
All the early non-licensed radio experimenters (Marconi included) were,
by definition, freebanders. All reality is aspect dependent.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Phil Kane
>> CELLULAR/WIRELESS technology is what's leveling the playing
>> field for them, bypassing wired and conventional single-channel
>> and multi-channel communications.
>
> And how many of those countries have you seen from the inside out,
>Phil?
>
>
My own experience -- I haven't been off N. America since 1967.
For examples, though, lets's start with China and several
countriez of the Middle East where 10 years ago there was
almost no copper.....nobody is stringing new copper, it's all
wireless.
Teh let's go on to Central and South America, where a former
chief of the FCC's OET (Dick Smith) has been heading up a
consortium to spread wireless telephony (cellular) in countries
like Venezuela, Peru, and Chile.
A good friend and professional colleague in SillyCon Valley -
Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP - is the founder and head technologist
of a consultancy that has already signed about a dozen
"third-world" countries to do the same. He's one of the more
vocal gurus of UWB technology.
Just for kicks he convinced the King of Tonga to let him be
the Domain Name czar (to mix pickles) and sell/assign domain
names ending in ".to" on the open market. Folks who can't get
".com" and ".org" names from InterNIC because they are taken can
now get the counterpart ".com.to" and ".org.to" from Dewayne....
when he's not attending meetings of the FCC's Technology Advisory
Council (or whatever they call it now) or playing upscale digital/packet
on the 5 GHz ham band with several of his cohorts.
> How many Afghanii's or Tchadians have cellphones?
A lot more than one would imagine but who said anything about
"the common folk" getting service? First come the politicows
and village/tribal chiefs.....
> Just curious.
Aren't we all....
Dick Carroll
K0HB wrote:
>
> In article <9554nf$f3a$1...@208.207.71.178>,
> Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You equate Freebanders with Marconi?
> >
>
> All the early non-licensed radio experimenters (Marconi included) were,
> by definition, freebanders. All reality is aspect dependent.
Could we then consider this an example of the Hans Definition?
Freebanders are, by definition, outlaws. In the early days of radio
there were no controlling laws. 'Nuff said.
W1RFI
>To answer a question with a question, why is it that 5wpm code test is
>being fought just as hard by the codebashing lazies just as hard as the
>20wpm was?
I assume that you don't intend that I answer this question because I am neither
code bashing or lazy.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
K0...@uswest.net
writes:
>
> Could we then consider this an example of the Hans Definition?
>
Cosider away, my dear friend. It's a free country. All reality is aspect
dependent.
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
- Albert Einstein
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Larry Roll K3LT
<rick...@firstinter.net> writes:
>
>National Geographic begins sending me renewal notices in July, and sends at
>least
>one a month until I renew. I call that harrassment, way beyond bother :)
>
>Rick T.
>W7RT
Rick:
If you call THAT "harrassment," then take my advice -- NEVER
subscribe to Reader's Digest! You'll get renewal notices at least
semi-weekly! Nice magazine, always an interesting read -- but
when they started stuffing my mailbox with incessant renewal
notices, advertising, sweepstakes, etc. etc. ad infinitum, I went
back to reading it at the doctor's office!
73 de Larry, K3LT
W1RFI
>If you call THAT "harrassment," then take my advice -- NEVER
>subscribe to Reader's Digest! You'll get renewal notices at least
>semi-weekly! Nice magazine, always an interesting read -- but
>when they started stuffing my mailbox with incessant renewal
>notices, advertising, sweepstakes, etc. etc. ad infinitum, I went
>back to reading it at the doctor's office!
Now, does Readers Digest rank right up there with "Extra Lite" as one of your
pet peeves, Larry? Gosh, there is sure a lot wrong with the world, eh?
Is there anything important that bothers you?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Aaron Jones
>>From: yo...@aol.comnospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
>
>>If you call THAT "harrassment," then take my advice -- NEVER
>>subscribe to Reader's Digest! You'll get renewal notices at least
>>semi-weekly! Nice magazine, always an interesting read -- but
>>when they started stuffing my mailbox with incessant renewal
>>notices, advertising, sweepstakes, etc. etc. ad infinitum, I went
>>back to reading it at the doctor's office!
>
>Now, does Readers Digest rank right up there with "Extra Lite" as one of your
>pet peeves, Larry? Gosh, there is sure a lot wrong with the world, eh?
Baiting Larry on his Extra views Ed? A form of trolling? This post of
Larry's talks about magazine renewals and appears to have nothing to
do with the Extra argument...
>Is there anything important that bothers you?
Baiting Larry again?? Has Larry gotten so far under your skin that
you have abandoned all your professional posting habits?? For heavens
sakes remember your position... :-)