You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
Slow Code
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should learn
it anyway just in case. Ham radio is like a spare tire, when you need it
you hope it's not flat. CW is like the air in the tire. I know I don't
ever want to hear someone say: "Why couldn't you get help, I though hams
were supposed to know morse code."
Sc
Steve
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:Qh4Ig.10669$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
an old freind
Slow Code wrote:
> You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should learn
> it anyway just in case.
why is the fantastic ly unlikely something you should eb prepared for?
Brenda Ann
--
Say no to institutionalized interference.
Just say NO to HD/IBOC!
"an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156635009.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Logically, the fantastically unlikely is the one thing you SHOULD be
prepared for. According to Murphy, whatever can go wrong, WILL go wrong,
and at the least opportune time.
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve
Well I prefer to be prepared for the unlikely event that an Alein
invader will be unable to read PSK 31
Bakb0ne
I agree, they should learn it..
they just shouldnt HAVE TO LEARN IT...
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve
Just4Me
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:Qh4Ig.10669$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
an old freind
Just4Me wrote:
> Don't feed this idiot troll!
L.
getting boring. What IS - IS and until someone - like the FCC changes
things - it shall stay as it is. No amount of bitching here will get it
done. So, if you want a license, lump it and learn it. If not - its your
loss.
L.
"Just4Me" <n...@nono.noway> wrote in message
news:K57Ig.9546$JO5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Rick Frazier
with more than two or three brain cells would be sick of it by now. Why
don't you just crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under?
At this point, even a relative moron should get the point that there are
a bunch of people that really don't give a damn about CW. That you do is
not the point, but your continual posts about it are the point.
Therefore, your continual posts lead me to believe you should be seeking
mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about you get a
life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands right now?
Though I'm an Extra and passed the CW requirements shouldn't make a
difference if I choose to operate phone. If the requirements change and
new Hams aren't required to take the code test, am I going to be pissed?
Hell no, because I took the tests when I did because I wanted to be a
productive part of this hobby, not wait for an easier ticket in. I
learned it, just as a huge number of others have, but none of us wish to
push it like you seem to want to. Even the most die-hard CW fanatic is
spending his time on the bands, not on the internet trolling for arguments.
Now, to provide a response to your query: It is extremely unlikely that
with all the means we have for contact in the case of an emergency, that
CW would be the only way to make contact, particularly if you live in
anything near an urban evironment in mainland US. First and foremost,
there has to be someone else that will respond to you, and given the
things going on with the hobby lately, I doubt that CW will be the
safety net you'd like to believe it is.
For myself, I have HF and VHF in both the house and vehicle, and have
the VHF radios all programmed with all of the local police and fire
frequencies. In a true emergency, I wouldn't lose a moment's time
worrying about whether it was legal or not before I keyed up on a public
service/fire/police frequency if it meant saving somebody. Would CW
help? Not very damn likely, as first I'd have to key up the HF rig, get
to someone that could relay, pass a message, hope like hell that they
actually did call the proper authority, (and were believed), and so on.
You can bet I'll get attention right away if I key up on any of the
public service frequencies, and they damn well will respond, if for no
other reason than to find me. If that's what it takes, so be it, they
can fight it out in court later, and I'd get so much media attention
they wouldn't dare push it very far. On the other hand, the likelihood
of actually being believed using standard, HF and CW procedures, or
getting help in a timely manner to actually save a life is an extremely
remote chance...
I rarely filter anyone, but you've definitely earned the "plonk" of
being filtered. Say Bye-Bye ! ! !
--Rick AH7H
rover1
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:Qh4Ig.10669$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
-----------------------------------------------------
Here we go again boring or what
Timmy
"Rick Frazier" <ri...@rickfrazier.com> wrote in message
news:zMKdnUjw4qFg1GzZ...@hawaiiantel.net...
--Rick AH7H
Rick...point well made, tho a bit wordy.
I happen to be in a position whereby I work in law enforcement and have more
that one HT in the home charger, said HTs being on the local PD freqs.
Save a life? CW? Not hardly! That is a moot argument, one with no merit save
for the spammers who wish to continue the thread for their own, selfish
entertainment.
In an emergency I use one of the HTs. They work even when the cell phone
service is out.
In a true emergency, CW is not fast enough. It is archaic. It simply doesn't
cut the proverbial mustard.
Keep a Marine battery on hand and keep it charged. One can work any number
of radios from that.
'Nuff said.
Cecil Moore
> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread
> in a SCANNER newsgroup??
Why in the @!#$% are you posting the identical objection
five times in an ANTENNA newsgroup??
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
Slow Code
"Cecil Moore" <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UcgIg.13569$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> The Kat wrote:
>> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread in a SCANNER newsgroup??
>
> Why in the @!#$% are you posting the identical objection
> five times in an ANTENNA newsgroup??
>
an old friend
> "Cecil Moore" <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UcgIg.13569$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > The Kat wrote:
> >> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread in a SCANNER newsgroup??
> >
> > Why in the @!#$% are you posting the identical objection
> > five times in an ANTENNA newsgroup??
> >
> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
enjoying your trolling SC at least this is on topic unlike most of your
crap
Reg Edwards
But the chance that I shall see, in my lifetime, someone drowning in a
river when I have with me a battery-operated transmitter, a receiver,
an antenna, ground spike, and a morse key is about one in
10,000,000,000.
I would be far more likely to plug in the microphone.
In any case, by the time I had got the gear fixed up and made a
suitable contact, the poor victim could have floated out into the
Atlantic Ocean.
It would be a good idea to dump the equipment and run downstream along
the river bank to the nearest safety belt.
----
Reg.
an Old friend
nah you use the ground spike to achor your antenna to use as a safety
line the tranmiter might make a decent grip might not and then go in
and save the guy
at least the troll is on topic is all
> ----
> Reg.
Jack Ricci
> prepared for. According to Murphy, whatever can go wrong, WILL go wrong,
> and at the least opportune time.
news:ecqoj2$dhk$1...@news2.kornet.net...
...That is exactly why I fill in and buy two identical 6/49 lottery tickets,
and give one away to a cute waitress as a tip on our wedding anniversary. I
love reverse psychology...Ooops! Wrong newsgroup...
Jack
Kurt Ullman
"Jack Ricci" <ri...@mnsi.net> wrote:
> > Logically, the fantastically unlikely is the one thing you SHOULD be
> > prepared for. According to Murphy, whatever can go wrong, WILL go wrong,
> > and at the least opportune time.
> "Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
> news:ecqoj2$dhk$1...@news2.kornet.net...
>
> ...That is exactly why I fill in and buy two identical 6/49 lottery tickets,
> and give one away to a cute waitress as a tip on our wedding anniversary. I
> love reverse psychology...Ooops! Wrong newsgroup...
>
>
You're married to a cute waitress? Cool (g)
DrDeath
news:ecs4ko$ike$1...@news2.open-news-network.org...
>
> "Cecil Moore" <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UcgIg.13569$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> The Kat wrote:
>>> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread in a SCANNER newsgroup??
>>
>> Why in the @!#$% are you posting the identical objection
>> five times in an ANTENNA newsgroup??
>>
> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
Not a chance. Your group is up for the Buster Urinal award.
--
Suffer, unto me.
Indulge, my every need.
UV Count 1
Vote Mark Morgan for THICK AS A BRICK in August 2006!
Vote rec.radio.amateur.policy for Busted Urinal in August 2006!
an_old_friend
DrDeath wrote:
> "Slow Code" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ecs4ko$ike$1...@news2.open-news-network.org...
> >
> > "Cecil Moore" <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:UcgIg.13569$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >> The Kat wrote:
> >>> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread in a SCANNER newsgroup??
> >>
> >> Why in the @!#$% are you posting the identical objection
> >> five times in an ANTENNA newsgroup??
> >>
> > Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
>
> Not a chance. Your group is up for the Buster Urinal award.
Cecil Moore
> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
:-) rec.radio.amateur.policy was created to keep this
crap off the other more technical newsgroups.
Not Lloyd
"an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156686111....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
........
And you will forever be unemployed White Trash, Mark.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
since i am empolyeed now ...
but you need a name of your own
>
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
> Slow Code wrote:
>> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
>
> :-) rec.radio.amateur.policy was created to keep this
> crap off the other more technical newsgroups.
It would appear that the Busted Urinals of RRAP are trying to share the
joy. Clueful posters will make tactical use of their killfiles.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
Vote rec.radio.amateur.policy for Busted Urinal in August 2006!
Also vote Cletis Perkins for:
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck
Unabomber Surprise
Goofy @zzed Babboon
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award
an old friend
The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:46:48 +0000, Cecil Moore did the cha-cha, and screamed:
> > Slow Code wrote:
> >> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
> >
> > :-) rec.radio.amateur.policy was created to keep this
> > crap off the other more technical newsgroups.
>
> It would appear that the Busted Urinals of RRAP are trying to share the
> joy. Clueful posters will make tactical use of their killfiles.
Slow Code
Slow Code
news:6L4Ig.42248$1Z5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> YAWN....
11 meters dead?
> "Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:Qh4Ig.10669$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should
>> learn it anyway just in case. Ham radio is like a spare tire, when you
>> need it you hope it's not flat. CW is like the air in the tire. I know
>> I don't ever want to hear someone say: "Why couldn't you get help, I
Slow Code
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
> Slow Code wrote:
>> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
>
>:-) rec.radio.amateur.policy was created to keep this
> crap off the other more technical newsgroups.
ROFLMAO
That was good.
Slow Code
news:86ce7$44f1f061$438c601a$23...@ALLTEL.NET:
> I refuse to get involved in such an utterly ridiculous discussion, any
> one who thinks CW as a 'modern' form of communications and thinks it
> needs to be learned 'just in case' should also have a horse handy
> 'just in case' he runs out of gas or his car breaks down.
>
> Slow Code, its now the 21st century, learning and knowing CW ( or Morse
> Code, which WAS a modern form of communications during the Civil War),
> should retire to his room and listen to his massive collection of 45 &
> 33 rpm records.
>
> Also I'm not impressed with your cross posting of this
> conversation..... plainly put your a TROLL
Okay.
I'll put you down as a No for CW. Thanks for helping with the survey.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
wrote:NoCode Techs should have to pass the CW test in a year or get
booted.
yes we know you want to kill the ars
K4YZ
MorktheMenta...@kb9rqz.com wrote:
> yes we know you want to kill the ars
Hey..the "ars" already has YOU, Mork..."the end" can't be far
behind.
Steve, K4YZ
Not Lloyd
"K4YZ" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156748484.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
MorktheMenta...@kb9rqz.com wrote:
Steve, K4YZ
...
It only hurts when Mark tries to think.
Is this more of your "feebl harrment", Steve?
--
"Steve's" post has headers:
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
> X-Submitted-By: 66.82.9.42
Your reply contains headers:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.82.9.42
> Injection-Info: 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.82.9.42
'Nuff said.
an old friend
next I am end of the ARS in any case......
is Amy Fireproof?
kb9rqz_chi...@yahoo.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.com wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:24:00 -0500, "Not Lloyd" <anon@anon> wrote:
>
> >
> >"an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1156686111....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >Slow Code wrote:
> >> "Cecil Moore" <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:UcgIg.13569$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > The Kat wrote:
> >> >> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread in a SCANNER newsgroup??
> >> >
> >> > Why in the @!#$% are you posting the identical objection
> >> > five times in an ANTENNA newsgroup??
> >> >
> >> Keep this crap out of rec.radio.amateur.policy!!!
> >
> >enjoying your trolling SC at least this is on topic unlike most of your
> >crap
> >........
> >
> >And you will forever be unemployed White Trash, Mark.
> since i am empolyeed now ...
Liar.
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve
Woody
LOL
rb
"The Kat" <ne...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:lsh2f2l1egqf4qbqg...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:43:53 -0400, "L." <nos...@tnospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> WHY in the FUCK are you continuing this thread
> in a SCANNER newsgroup??
>
>
>
>
> Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
>
> This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...
>
> Remove XYZ to email me
Woody
LOL
rb
"The Kat" <ne...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:sqh2f2pgr6qff03oo...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Aug 2006 18:44:08 -0700, "an old freid to some a nightmare to steve"
Woody
LOL
rb
"The Kat" <ne...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:8rh2f290q6k4fmb6d...@4ax.com...
Woody
LOL
rb
"The Kat" <ne...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:2sh2f2hkcuirus63l...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Aug 2006 19:09:13 -0700, "an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com>
Woody
LOL
rb
"The Kat" <ne...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:gqh2f2t810716scfn...@4ax.com...
peewee_ll...@yahoo.com
an old freind to none a nightmare to kids wrote:
> kb9rqz_chi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> .
> > > since i am empolyeed now ...
> >
> > Liar.
> me
You don't have a business license, Markie! You aren't in business for
yourself. You are a confirmed liar.
an old friend
> You don't have a business license, Markie! You aren't in business for
> yourself. You are a confirmed liar.
well you are not confirmed as a peroson
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
why does the trol Slow code hate ham radio?
Slow Code
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:23:06 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>"an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1156635009.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Slow Code wrote:
>>>> You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should
>>>> learn it anyway just in case.
>>> why?
>>>
>>> why is the fantastic ly unlikely something you should eb prepared for?
> why does the trol Slow code hate ham radio?
> http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
>
Motivating hams to be better hams is a good thing.
For example, if you were going to lose your internet if you didn't learn
how to type and spell after a year, I'm sure you'd be learning how to type
and spell. But since there is no requirement that you have to type and
spell properly after a year, you continue on murdering the english
language.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
nope you over look facts, I can't type or spel without making at least
twice the effort you do
if you were told ththat everyone in the world would die if yu did not
learn to fly by flapigng your arms you would be motivated to learn.
However it does nt fllow you would learn
>
>SC
kb9rqz_chi...@yahoo.com
an old friendless child molester wrote:
> peewee_ll...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > an old freind to none a nightmare to kids wrote:
> you are obessed ywith raping kids wisemen
> > You don't have a business license, Markie! You aren't in business for
> > yourself. You are a confirmed liar.
> right I don't have a busness licese , tbut then I don't need one
Not according to the State of Michigan, you do need one.
> well you are not confirmed as a peroson
What's a "peroson?"
an old friend
kb9rqz_chi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > right I don't have a busness licese , tbut then I don't need one
>
> Not according to the State of Michigan, you do need one.
cit your source
Slow Code
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:12:32 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>Ma...@kb9rqz.com wrote in
>>news:fjp8f2llhqlnk43dq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:23:06 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:1156635009.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Slow Code wrote:
>>>>>> You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should
>>>>>> learn it anyway just in case.
>>>>> why?
>>>>>
>>>>> why is the fantastic ly unlikely something you should eb prepared
>>>>> for?
>>> why does the trol Slow code hate ham radio?
>>> http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>Motivating hams to be better hams is a good thing.
>>
>>
>>For example, if you were going to lose your internet if you didn't learn
>>how to type and spell after a year, I'm sure you'd be learning how to
>>type and spell. But since there is no requirement that you have to type
>>and spell properly after a year, you continue on murdering the english
>>language.
> nope you over look facts, I can't type or spel without making at least
> twice the effort you do
That's why you'll never be a good ham. You refuse to put forth the
effort.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
I am already a better ham than you
at least the measure of the Ham code
kb9rqz_chi...@yahoo.com
What's "cit?" You are a moron.
an old friend
Slow Code
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:21:38 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>Ma...@kb9rqz.com wrote in
>>news:pbs9f2hp4msdkbln4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:12:32 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>For example, if you were going to lose your internet if you didn't
>>>>learn how to type and spell after a year, I'm sure you'd be learning
>>>>how to type and spell. But since there is no requirement that you
>>>>have to type and spell properly after a year, you continue on
>>>>murdering the english language.
>>> nope you over look facts, I can't type or spel without making at least
>>> twice the effort you do
>>
>>
>>That's why you'll never be a good ham. You refuse to put forth the
>>effort.
> I am already a better ham than you
> at least the measure of the Ham code
whatever that means.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
gald you agree
LenAn...@ieee.org
Rick Frazier wrote:
> You've insisted on posting this crap so many times just about anyone
> with more than two or three brain cells would be sick of it by now. Why
> don't you just crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under?
>
> At this point, even a relative moron should get the point that there are
> a bunch of people that really don't give a damn about CW. That you do is
> not the point, but your continual posts about it are the point.
> Therefore, your continual posts lead me to believe you should be seeking
> mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about you get a
> life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands right now?
>
> Though I'm an Extra and passed the CW requirements shouldn't make a
> difference if I choose to operate phone. If the requirements change and
> new Hams aren't required to take the code test, am I going to be pissed?
> Hell no, because I took the tests when I did because I wanted to be a
> productive part of this hobby, not wait for an easier ticket in. I
> learned it, just as a huge number of others have, but none of us wish to
> push it like you seem to want to. Even the most die-hard CW fanatic is
> spending his time on the bands, not on the internet trolling for arguments.
>
> Now, to provide a response to your query: It is extremely unlikely that
> with all the means we have for contact in the case of an emergency, that
> CW would be the only way to make contact, particularly if you live in
> anything near an urban evironment in mainland US. First and foremost,
> there has to be someone else that will respond to you, and given the
> things going on with the hobby lately, I doubt that CW will be the
> safety net you'd like to believe it is.
>
> For myself, I have HF and VHF in both the house and vehicle, and have
> the VHF radios all programmed with all of the local police and fire
> frequencies. In a true emergency, I wouldn't lose a moment's time
> worrying about whether it was legal or not before I keyed up on a public
> service/fire/police frequency if it meant saving somebody. Would CW
> help? Not very damn likely, as first I'd have to key up the HF rig, get
> to someone that could relay, pass a message, hope like hell that they
> actually did call the proper authority, (and were believed), and so on.
> You can bet I'll get attention right away if I key up on any of the
> public service frequencies, and they damn well will respond, if for no
> other reason than to find me. If that's what it takes, so be it, they
> can fight it out in court later, and I'd get so much media attention
> they wouldn't dare push it very far. On the other hand, the likelihood
> of actually being believed using standard, HF and CW procedures, or
> getting help in a timely manner to actually save a life is an extremely
> remote chance...
>
> I rarely filter anyone, but you've definitely earned the "plonk" of
> being filtered. Say Bye-Bye ! ! !
>
> --Rick AH7H
>
> Slow Code wrote:
>
> > You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should learn
> > you hope it's not flat. CW is like the air in the tire. I know I don't
> > ever want to hear someone say: "Why couldn't you get help, I though hams
> > were supposed to know morse code."
> >
> > Sc
Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
millennium.
"Slow Code" is a relic of the 1930s, mentally over 70 years in the
past.
markie_morg...@yahoo.com
> ko
Poor Markie, always at a loss for words
an old friend
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> Rick Frazier wrote:
> > You've insisted on posting this crap so many times just about anyone
> > with more than two or three brain cells would be sick of it by now. Why
> > don't you just crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under?
> > --Rick AH7H
> >
> > Slow Code wrote:
> >
> > > You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life, but you should learn
> > > it anyway just in case. Ham radio is like a spare tire, when you need it
> > > you hope it's not flat. CW is like the air in the tire. I know I don't
> > > ever want to hear someone say: "Why couldn't you get help, I though hams
> > > were supposed to know morse code."
> > >
> > > Sc
>
> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
> millennium.
>
> "Slow Code" is a relic of the 1930s, mentally over 70 years in the
> past.
indeed it is interesting that Slow code seems stuck in era before he
was born do I have to apologize to Sceintology nuts
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
LenAn...@ieee.org
Mark, you don't have to apologize to anyone.
If Slow Code isn't a throwback to 7 decades ago, he is one example
of a thoroughly brainwashed morseman imprinted with the Beliefs
of 70 years ago...and all the mythos of "code saves lives" that
spread like kudzu after the Titanic disaster of 1912.
Slow Code
How can someone agree when they can't understand what you're attempting to
babble.
Sc
Slow Code
news:1157078311.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
Now go bullshit with Dr Death on 11 meters, and don't come back until you
pull your head out of your ass.
Sc
an old friend
Slow Code wrote:
> "LenAn...@ieee.org" <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:1157078311.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> > Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
> > millennium.
>
>
>
> And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
trolling right along
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org> wrote in
>> Rick Frazier wrote:
>>> You've insisted on posting this crap so many times just about anyone
>>> with more than two or three brain cells would be sick of it by now.
>>> Why don't you just crawl back under the rock you crawled out from
>>> under?
>
>>> At this point, even a relative moron should get the point that there
>>> are a bunch of people that really don't give a damn about CW. That you
>>> do is not the point, but your continual posts about it are the point.
>>> Therefore, your continual posts lead me to believe you should be
>>> seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about
>>> you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands
>>> right now?
Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?
>>> Though I'm an Extra and passed the CW requirements shouldn't make a
>>> difference if I choose to operate phone. If the requirements change
>>> and new Hams aren't required to take the code test, am I going to be
>>> pissed?
>>> Hell no, because I took the tests when I did because I wanted to be a
>>> productive part of this hobby, not wait for an easier ticket in. I
>>> learned it, just as a huge number of others have, but none of us wish
>>> to push it like you seem to want to. Even the most die-hard CW fanatic
>>> is spending his time on the bands, not on the internet trolling for
>>> arguments.
Nobody responding to your CQs, "Slow?" Is that why you are so
up-tight and angry in this forum?
>>> Now, to provide a response to your query: It is extremely unlikely
>>> that with all the means we have for contact in the case of an
>>> emergency, that CW would be the only way to make contact, particularly
>>> if you live in anything near an urban evironment in mainland US.
>>> First and foremost, there has to be someone else that will respond to
>>> you, and given the things going on with the hobby lately, I doubt that
>>> CW will be the safety net you'd like to believe it is.
>
>>> For myself, I have HF and VHF in both the house and vehicle, and have
>>> the VHF radios all programmed with all of the local police and fire
>>> frequencies. In a true emergency, I wouldn't lose a moment's time
>>> worrying about whether it was legal or not before I keyed up on a
>>> public service/fire/police frequency if it meant saving somebody.
>>> Would CW help? Not very damn likely, as first I'd have to key up the
>>> HF rig, get to someone that could relay, pass a message, hope like hell
>>> that they actually did call the proper authority, (and were believed),
>>> and so on.
>>> You can bet I'll get attention right away if I key up on any of the
>>> public service frequencies, and they damn well will respond, if for no
>>> other reason than to find me. If that's what it takes, so be it, they
>>> can fight it out in court later, and I'd get so much media attention
>>> they wouldn't dare push it very far. On the other hand, the likelihood
>>> of actually being believed using standard, HF and CW procedures, or
>>> getting help in a timely manner to actually save a life is an extremely
>>> remote chance...
You haven't answered that from a licensed amateur Extra, "Slow."
Why haven't you? Is it possible you don't know of anything in
radio except what the ARRL has spoon-fed you?
>>> I rarely filter anyone, but you've definitely earned the "plonk" of
>>> being filtered. Say Bye-Bye ! ! !
"Slow," you've earned that "plonk" many times over.
>>> --Rick AH7H
>
>> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
>> millennium.
>
>And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)
>Now go bullshit with Dr Death on 11 meters, and don't come back until you
>pull your head out of your ass.
I don't know any "Dr Death," "Slow," nor do I operate on
"11 meters."
Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. <yawn>
Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
Must be your own four neurons in the way.
Beep, beep
an old friend
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: Slow Code on Fri, Sep 1 2006 5:36 pm
>
>
> >"LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org> wrote in
> >> Rick Frazier wrote:
> >>> seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about
> >>> you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands
> >>> right now?
>
> Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?
becuase the answer is that there is nobody on we wants to "talk' to
>
> >>> Though I'm an Extra and passed the CW requirements shouldn't make a
> >>> difference if I choose to operate phone. If the requirements change
> >>> and new Hams aren't required to take the code test, am I going to be
> >>> pissed?
> >>> Hell no, because I took the tests when I did because I wanted to be a
> >>> productive part of this hobby, not wait for an easier ticket in. I
> >>> learned it, just as a huge number of others have, but none of us wish
> >>> to push it like you seem to want to. Even the most die-hard CW fanatic
> >>> is spending his time on the bands, not on the internet trolling for
> >>> arguments.
>
> Nobody responding to your CQs, "Slow?" Is that why you are so
> up-tight and angry in this forum?
and still holding forlorn hope the FCC will somehow make people see the
light and use CW
the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
to the ARRL what 50 years ago
> >>> they wouldn't dare push it very far. On the other hand, the likelihood
> >>> of actually being believed using standard, HF and CW procedures, or
> >>> getting help in a timely manner to actually save a life is an extremely
> >>> remote chance...
>
> You haven't answered that from a licensed amateur Extra, "Slow."
> Why haven't you? Is it possible you don't know of anything in
> radio except what the ARRL has spoon-fed you?
perhaps not even that
>
>
> >>> I rarely filter anyone, but you've definitely earned the "plonk" of
> >>> being filtered. Say Bye-Bye ! ! !
>
> "Slow," you've earned that "plonk" many times over.
>
> >>> --Rick AH7H
> >
> >> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
> >> millennium.
> >
> >And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
>
> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
> inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
> reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)
yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
child of the ARRL
>
> >Now go bullshit with Dr Death on 11 meters, and don't come back until you
> >pull your head out of your ass.
>
> I don't know any "Dr Death," "Slow," nor do I operate on
> "11 meters."
>
> Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
> Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
> nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. <yawn>
amasing how they keep resorting to threats and orders
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Slow Code on Fri, Sep 1 2006 5:36 pm
>> >"LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org> wrote in
>> >> Rick Frazier wrote:
>> >>> seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about
>> >>> you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands
>> >>> right now?
>
>> Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?
>
>becuase the answer is that there is nobody on we wants to "talk' to
Or maybe nobody wants to talk to him... :-)
>the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
>to the ARRL what 50 years ago
I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
of US radio amtaeurs. Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
life) Hiram Percy Maxim. "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.
The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.
ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
organization, the Radio Club of America. There were lots of
"national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
dropped out. RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
amateur radio.
Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
retainer from the ARRL. ARRL kept promoting themselves as
"representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
That changed dramatically once the FCC got their website
going and ramped up to take Comments electronically. The
ARRL had to retain a second firm in DC for lobbying.
The evidence is an observation of the number and kind of
Comments on 98-143 "restructuring" versus Comments on
all those Petitions and last year's NPRM concerning code
testing elimination. The pro-code-test advocates' Comments
were straight out of the League hymn book about morsemanship
with a few adding in nebulous advantages for "homeland
security" necessities! [those Petitions began after 11 Sep
01]
What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
(by administrations) morse testing for any license having
below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.
After WRC-03 the League took a neutral stance, neither for
nor against code testing in the USA. It's still a "ARRL
versus the World" situation.
>> >> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
>> >> millennium.
>
>> >And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
>
>> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
>> inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
>> reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)
>
>yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
>just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
>child of the ARRL
It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
RAND, and STATUS. That was VERY important to the controlling
coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
others...in a hobby activity.
What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
"good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship. The
morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
decades after the 1930s.
The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism. Combining
"vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect
setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they
WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the
window...rank, status, title RULED.
>> >Now go bullshit with Dr Death on 11 meters, and don't come back until you
>> >pull your head out of your ass.
>
>> I don't know any "Dr Death," "Slow," nor do I operate on
>> "11 meters."
>
>> Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
>> Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
>> nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. <yawn>
>
>amasing how they keep resorting to threats and orders
That's all they have left in this new millennium, Mark.
Some of them, such as Blow Code and Hambrecht still think
they are "better than others" in all aspects, not just
morsemanship. They LIKE that. So much so that they are
in great personal fear of losing that very precious rank,
status, title, and privilege that MIGHT happen if the
code test is eliminated. They will LOSE their "better
than you" rationalization. Internally the sky will have
fallen on their self-perceptions.
Personally, I think radio and electronics is totally
fascinating. So much so that I made a career choice of
it while studying for an entirely different sort of
work. Professional work, not some amateur dabbling,
yet I liked to make electronic things in my home
workshop. Things other than work-related tasks. It
is FUN, personally rewarding, not "work."
I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working. Years
later some KID is trying to "moralize" me into "working
on morsemanship?" He (or she) can go shove it
somewhere...until he (or she) can prove they've done
more than I in radio communications...which they have
NOT done yet in here.
Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
"ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
over most of the world via PCs and the Internet. Why
IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
If some dumbshit wants to moralize about "working" and
"investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
abuse/mis-use. If these self-styled emperors want to
flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).
N2...@aol.com
> From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
> >the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
> >to the ARRL what 50 years ago
>
> I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
> sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
> of US radio amtaeurs.
The FCC thought so too - well into the 1970s.
> Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
> long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
> life) Hiram Percy Maxim.
Maxim died in 1936. 1956 was twenty years later.
> "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
> to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.
He also promoted many other things on those pages, such as technical
progress, operating skills, public service, and the observance of
government regulations.
> The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
> enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
> that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.
Publications were one way to support the organization. They also
supported amateur radio by offering low-cost information specifically
for the radio amateur.
> ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
> formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
> organization, the Radio Club of America.
But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
- just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
organization.
One of the cofounders, Charles H. Stewart, 3ZS, lived right here in
Radnor, PA. Hardly "local" in those days.
> There were lots of
> "national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
> dropped out.
Name some.
> RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
> amateur radio.
It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
honorary and historical.
>
> Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
> presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
> retainer from the ARRL.
There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
contacting FCC directly.
> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
> That changed dramatically once the FCC got their website
> going and ramped up to take Comments electronically. The
> ARRL had to retain a second firm in DC for lobbying.
All ECFS did was to make it easier to petition and comment.
Back in the 1960s, when the changes known as "incentive licensing" were
being debated, FCC received over 6000 comments from individuals and
groups. There were at least 10 proposals besides the ARRL's. Those
other proposals were taken seriously enough by FCC to get RM numbers.
> The evidence is an observation of the number and kind of
> Comments on 98-143 "restructuring" versus Comments on
> all those Petitions and last year's NPRM concerning code
> testing elimination. The pro-code-test advocates' Comments
> were straight out of the League hymn book about morsemanship
> with a few adding in nebulous advantages for "homeland
> security" necessities! [those Petitions began after 11 Sep
> 01]
??
The fact is that the majority of individuals who commented supported
the retention of at least some Morse Code testing. The majority also
supported elimination of the Morse Code test for the General Class
license.
> What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
> pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
> changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
> (by administrations) morse testing for any license having
> below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
> administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
> WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.
Not true! Not true at all, Len.
The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their
policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to
ITU-R S25.5.
Given the strong support from many other member countries to change
S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would
be majority support to change S25.5.
> After WRC-03 the League took a neutral stance, neither for
> nor against code testing in the USA. It's still a "ARRL
> versus the World" situation.
Wrong again, Len!
In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
test for General but retaining it for Extra.
The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
eliminated for General.
The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
retained for Extra.
The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
they *are* majorities.
> >> >> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
> >> >> millennium.
> >
> >> >And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
> >
> >> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
> >> inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
> >> reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)
> >
> >yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
> >just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
> >child of the ARRL
>
> It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
> never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
> RAND, and STATUS.
"RAND"?
Do you mean Remington Rand, Ayn Rand, or the South African monetary
unit?
> That was VERY important to the controlling
> coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
> others...in a hobby activity.
Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len. Do try to get your
history straight.
The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
earlier.
btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.
> What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
> "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
> and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.
How so?
Did you forget about the written tests?
> The
> morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
> far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
> morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
> service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
> all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
> decades after the 1930s.
How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?
Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
War?
> The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
> that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
> guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism.
Should accomplishment not be rewarded?
> Combining
> "vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect
> setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they
> WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the
> window...rank, status, title RULED.
btw, Len, did you ever manage to get your Extra out of the box? It's
been more than six and a half years now...
> >> Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
> >> Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
> >> nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. <yawn>
> >
> >amasing how they keep resorting to threats and orders
>
> That's all they have left in this new millennium, Mark.
>
> Some of them, such as Blow Code and Hambrecht still think
> they are "better than others" in all aspects, not just
> morsemanship.
Well, maybe they are, Len. Or maybe they aren't.
Why does it bother you so much?
Do you have a need to look down on everyone?
> They LIKE that. So much so that they are
> in great personal fear of losing that very precious rank,
> status, title, and privilege that MIGHT happen if the
> code test is eliminated.
How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code
test is eliminated?
> They will LOSE their "better
> than you" rationalization.
How?
If they really are better than you, they'll still be better without the
test. And vice-versa.
> Internally the sky will have
> fallen on their self-perceptions.
>
> Personally, I think radio and electronics is totally
> fascinating.
Me too. Amateur radio particularly.
> So much so that I made a career choice of
> it while studying for an entirely different sort of
> work.
Funded by the taxpayers, too.
> Professional work, not some amateur dabbling,
> yet I liked to make electronic things in my home
> workshop.
Does being paid for something make someone automatically "better", Len?
> Things other than work-related tasks. It
> is FUN, personally rewarding, not "work."
But not rewarding enough for you to get an amateur radio license, it
seems.
Or have you gotten that Extra out of its box, as you told us you were
going to do, way back on January 19, 2000?
> I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
> seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
> long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working.
Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several
hundred people trained to do the job.
That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do -
self-funded and largely self-trained.
> Years
> later some KID is trying to "moralize" me into "working
> on morsemanship?"
Is youth somehow wrong, Len?
> He (or she) can go shove it
> somewhere...until he (or she) can prove they've done
> more than I in radio communications...which they have
> NOT done yet in here.
I see.
What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you
that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react?
> Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
> "ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
> before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
> conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
> over most of the world via PCs and the Internet.
What about your posting of January 19, 2000?
> Why
> IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
> 1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
> to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
> and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
Then why do you tell us so much about your past?
btw, if you are *not* interested in becoming a ham, why are you so
vocal about the requirements?
> If some dumbshit wants to moralize about "working" and
> "investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
> and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
> about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
> abuse/mis-use.
You sure seem to spend a lot of effort arguing about it, though.
Why?
> If these self-styled emperors want to
> flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
> on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).
Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....
Gee, Len, it's been more than three years since the ITU treaty changed.
Some countries have eliminated Morse Code testing, some haven't, and at
least one (Canada) has worked out a unique solution to the debate.
Meanwhile the USA rules on the subject haven't changed since 2000.
Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?
N2...@aol.com
> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
> inbred bigoted morsemen in here.
> Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
> Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
> Must be your own four neurons in the way.
>
> Beep, beep
Gee, Len....do you think posting that way will cause people to change
their minds and agree with you?
Do you think FCC would be convinced by such arguments?
Is that sort of posting your idea of how a "professional" behaves?
an old friend
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
>
>
> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> From: Slow Code on Fri, Sep 1 2006 5:36 pm
> >> >"LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org> wrote in
> >> >> Rick Frazier wrote:
> >> >>> seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about
> >> >>> you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands
> >> >>> right now?
> >
> >> Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?
> >
> >becuase the answer is that there is nobody on we wants to "talk' to
>
> Or maybe nobody wants to talk to him... :-)
>
>
> >the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
> >to the ARRL what 50 years ago
>
> I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
> sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
> of US radio amtaeurs. Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
> long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
> life) Hiram Percy Maxim. "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
> to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.
I think they betrayed it wether they meant to or not by as you will
sowing the seeds for the battles that were to follow
indeed in looking only back at Maxim I submit they betaryed even him
and therby betraying the fundental core of the service, a change that
needs to removed altogether if possible hence my fovoring a oe 2 class
license system with the prevedlges indentical to all the lclasses that
exist (with modern radio I reconize it may be needed to have some sort
of up or out license with 10 to do it becuase of the volume of material
but the classes should be equal in preveledge and the class should not
be a publicly accsable (except on an ARS wide) basis
and inccreasingly cold and unfeeling and failing to fufill the debt
they owe to those that came before them
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
an old friend
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
> > inbred bigoted morsemen in here.
>
>
> > Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
> > Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
> > Must be your own four neurons in the way.
> >
> > Beep, beep
>
> Gee, Len....do you think posting that way will cause people to change
> their minds and agree with you?
>
> Do you think FCC would be convinced by such arguments?
no but then Fcc was not being addressed
>
> Is that sort of posting your idea of how a "professional" behaves?
it certainly was the proper professional response
caling a jerk a kerk is simply being honest
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....
>
> Gee, Len, it's been more than three years since the ITU treaty changed.
> Some countries have eliminated Morse Code testing, some haven't, and at
> least one (Canada) has worked out a unique solution to the debate.
> Meanwhile the USA rules on the subject haven't changed since 2000.
>
> Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?
Jim, welcome back. I guess Coslo's BBS was a little too quiet?
billy beeper
an old friend
>
> billy beeper
Slow Code
news:1157164325.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Are you puting any effort into learning CW Mark or are you just being lazy
waiting for things to get dumbed down some more?
SC
Slow Code
news:1157242929.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
> Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
> nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. <yawn>
>
> Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
> Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
> Must be your own four neurons in the way.
>
> Beep, beep
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Great news Len,
your proctologist called, they found your head.
Sc
an old friend
Slow Code wrote:
> "LenAn...@ieee.org" <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:1157242929.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> your proctologist called, they found your head.
Slow Code:kook on parade
Dave Heil
>> ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
>> formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
>> organization, the Radio Club of America.
>
>
> But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
> - just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
> organization.
>
> One of the cofounders, Charles H. Stewart, 3ZS, lived right here in
> Radnor, PA. Hardly "local" in those days.
Heck, Jim, you're going to ruin one of Leonard's rants. Stewart, as I
recall, succeeded HPM.
>
>> There were lots of
>> "national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
>> dropped out.
>
>
> Name some.
>
>
>> RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
>> amateur radio.
>
>
> It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
> honorary and historical.
Why are those guys always living in the past? ;-o
>> Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
>> presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
>> retainer from the ARRL.
>
>
> There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
> contacting FCC directly.
>
>
>> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
>> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
>> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
>
>
> Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
> and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is
suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved.
>
>> That changed dramatically once the FCC got their website
>> going and ramped up to take Comments electronically. The
>> ARRL had to retain a second firm in DC for lobbying.
>
>
> All ECFS did was to make it easier to petition and comment.
Correct. It also saved a stamp. In the case of a number of Len's
comments, it saved him lots of stamps.
>> The evidence is an observation of the number and kind of
>> Comments on 98-143 "restructuring" versus Comments on
>> all those Petitions and last year's NPRM concerning code
>> testing elimination. The pro-code-test advocates' Comments
>> were straight out of the League hymn book about morsemanship
>> with a few adding in nebulous advantages for "homeland
>> security" necessities! [those Petitions began after 11 Sep
>> 01]
>
>
> ??
You know--the ARRL hymnal. It's filled with songs rallying government
to the ARRL. Len's sense of the surreal is working overtime.
> The fact is that the majority of individuals who commented supported
> the retention of at least some Morse Code testing. The majority also
> supported elimination of the Morse Code test for the General Class
> license.
>
>
>> What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
>> pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
>> changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
>> (by administrations) morse testing for any license having
>> below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
>> administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
>> WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.
>
>
> Not true! Not true at all, Len.
>
> The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their
> policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to
> ITU-R S25.5.
>
> Given the strong support from many other member countries to change
> S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would
> be majority support to change S25.5.
>
>
>> After WRC-03 the League took a neutral stance, neither for
>> nor against code testing in the USA. It's still a "ARRL
>> versus the World" situation.
>
>
> Wrong again, Len!
>
> In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
> test for General but retaining it for Extra.
Len isn't going to let facts stand in his way. His mind is made up.
> The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
> eliminated for General.
>
> The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
> retained for Extra.
>
> The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
> they *are* majorities.
>
>
>>>>>> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
>>>>>>millennium.
>>>
>>>>>And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
>>>
>>>> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
>>>> inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
>>>> reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)
>>>
>>>yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
>>>just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
>>>child of the ARRL
>>
>> It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
>> never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
>> RAND, and STATUS.
>
>
> "RAND"?
>
> Do you mean Remington Rand, Ayn Rand, or the South African monetary
> unit?
It is obviously a reference to the Rand Corporation--all very hush hush.
It is abundantly clear that Len's mind is made up. He KNOWS what
incentive licensing was about.
>
>> That was VERY important to the controlling
>> coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
>> others...in a hobby activity.
>
>
> Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len. Do try to get your
> history straight.
>
> The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
> *return* to a system something like that which existed before February
> 1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
> being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
> earlier.
>
> btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
> rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.
>
>
>> What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
>> "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
>> and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.
>
>
> How so?
>
> Did you forget about the written tests?
Don't ruin his rant, Jim. He needs to massage a few facts to make
things fit with his conclusion.
>
>> The
>> morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
>> far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
>> morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
>> service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
>> all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
>> decades after the 1930s.
>
>
> How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?
>
> Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
> War?
>
>
>> The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
>> that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
>> guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism.
>
>
> Should accomplishment not be rewarded?
Len shouldn't confuse the Vanity Callsign System with the earlier FCC
decisions, beginning in 1968 to award 1x2 calls to those who held the
Extra and had been licensed for a certan number of years. That was
later modified to include any Extra Class licensee without a minimum
number of years licensed. There was no periodic fee charged for those
callsign changes. That it chafes Len, is tough.
>
>> Combining
>> "vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect
>> setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they
>> WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the
>> window...rank, status, title RULED.
Perhaps in Len's mind, it did.
> btw, Len, did you ever manage to get your Extra out of the box? It's
> been more than six and a half years now...
Len still hasn't opened the box to obtain any amateur radio license.
He's been carping in this newsgroup for a decade or so and inertia rulez.
>
>>>> Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
>>>> Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
>>>> nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. <yawn>
>>>
>>>amasing how they keep resorting to threats and orders
>>
>> That's all they have left in this new millennium, Mark.
>>
>> Some of them, such as Blow Code and Hambrecht still think
>> they are "better than others" in all aspects, not just
>> morsemanship.
>
>
> Well, maybe they are, Len. Or maybe they aren't.
>
> Why does it bother you so much?
>
> Do you have a need to look down on everyone?
There are those doing something in which Len is not a participant. Some
of those who are participants are perceived by Len to have rank, status
and privilege. In amateur radio, Len would have to begin as all did--at
the bottom. He'd have no rank, status or privilege for quite some time.
There'd be those who would think they were "better" than him. There
are others who'd actually BE better than him. The thought chafes him.
Len isn't an instant anything in amateur radio. He isn't yet a neophyte.
>
>> They LIKE that. So much so that they are
>> in great personal fear of losing that very precious rank,
>> status, title, and privilege that MIGHT happen if the
>> code test is eliminated.
>
>
> How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code
> test is eliminated?
>
>
>> They will LOSE their "better
>> than you" rationalization.
>
>
> How?
>
> If they really are better than you, they'll still be better without the
> test. And vice-versa.
Precisely. They'll also have much more experience in amateur radio than
Leonard H. Anderson. Those who are proficient in the use of Morse, will
always be a leg up on Leonard.
>
>> Internally the sky will have
>> fallen on their self-perceptions.
>>
>> Personally, I think radio and electronics is totally
>> fascinating.
>
>
> Me too. Amateur radio particularly.
Seconded. How it must burn to have professed a decades-long interest in
something only to remain an outsider.
>
>> So much so that I made a career choice of
>> it while studying for an entirely different sort of
>> work.
>
>
> Funded by the taxpayers, too.
...and you'll note that Len is back to talking careers. That's one of
the wonderful things about amateur radio. One can work in something
quite far afield from radio and still have a rich and rewarding
experience in amateur radio. One of my local friends works at a funeral
home. One works as a jail guard. One is a retired teacher. All find
much enjoyment in amateur radio.
>
>> Professional work, not some amateur dabbling,
>> yet I liked to make electronic things in my home
>> workshop.
>
>
> Does being paid for something make someone automatically "better", Len?
It apparently does, unless it something made through dabbling in his
home workshop.
>
>> Things other than work-related tasks. It
>> is FUN, personally rewarding, not "work."
>
>
> But not rewarding enough for you to get an amateur radio license, it
> seems.
...and learning morse would apparently be "work" for Leonard.
> Or have you gotten that Extra out of its box, as you told us you were
> going to do, way back on January 19, 2000?
He talks the talk, but has trouble with the walk.
>
>> I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
>> seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
>> long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working.
>
>
> Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several
> hundred people trained to do the job.
It is always Big Time in the Len recounting. At least he has dropped
the claim that HE worked 24/7. My personal experience with PROFESSIONAL
long haul circuits that HAD to be kept working is that they don't
always. When a healthy solar flare comes along, you might as well mail
'em a letter.
> That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do -
> self-funded and largely self-trained.
>
>
>> Years
>> later some KID is trying to "moralize" me into "working
>> on morsemanship?"
>
>
> Is youth somehow wrong, Len?
You surely remember what he has said about CHILDREN in the past.
>
>> He (or she) can go shove it
>> somewhere...until he (or she) can prove they've done
>> more than I in radio communications...which they have
>> NOT done yet in here.
>
>
> I see.
>
> What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you
> that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react?
How about if someone younger than Len, but with more experience in radio
told him?
>
>> Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
>> "ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
>> before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
>> conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
>> over most of the world via PCs and the Internet.
>
>
> What about your posting of January 19, 2000?
In addition to that, what about the fact that he is paying for internet
service and that invariably, that internet circuit goes through wires
somewhere? The cellular telephone is a wonderful thing too, but it
isn't a substitute for amateur radio. It'd be pricey too.
>
>> Why
>> IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
>> 1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
>> to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
>> and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
>
>
> Then why do you tell us so much about your past?
If he didn't, he couldn't regale us with tales of his days in Big Time
HF radio!
> btw, if you are *not* interested in becoming a ham, why are you so
> vocal about the requirements?
Didn't you know, Jim? Len's made himself an ADVOCATE for
something-or-other.
>
>> If some dumbshit wants to moralize about "working" and
>> "investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
>> and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
>> about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
>> abuse/mis-use.
>
>
> You sure seem to spend a lot of effort arguing about it, though.
>
> Why?
His life is otherwise empty, depsite the comfortable income, two
mortgage-free homes and the like. Maybe Len can take a part-time job as
bag boy at Ralph's.
>
>> If these self-styled emperors want to
>> flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
>> on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).
>
>
> Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....
Len often acts ugly. I prefer not to think of him as naked.
> Gee, Len, it's been more than three years since the ITU treaty changed.
> Some countries have eliminated Morse Code testing, some haven't, and at
> least one (Canada) has worked out a unique solution to the debate.
> Meanwhile the USA rules on the subject haven't changed since 2000.
>
> Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?
Whether Len is ever a radio amateur or not, I'm not going to lose any
sleep over it.
Dave K8MN
an old friend
Dave Heil wrote:
>
bad night for DX?
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
>> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> From: Slow Code on Fri, Sep 1 2006 5:36 pm
>> >> >"LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org> wrote in
>> >> >> Rick Frazier wrote:
>
>> >> >>> seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how about
>> >> >>> you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you on the bands
>> >> >>> right now?
>> >
>> >> Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?
>> >
>> >becuase the answer is that there is nobody on we wants to "talk' to
>>
>> Or maybe nobody wants to talk to him... :-)
>
>that too
:-)
>> >the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
>> >to the ARRL what 50 years ago
>>
>> I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
>> sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
>> of US radio amtaeurs. Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
>> long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
>> life) Hiram Percy Maxim. "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
>> to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.
>
>I think they betrayed it wether they meant to or not by as you will
>sowing the seeds for the battles that were to follow
>
>indeed in looking only back at Maxim I submit they betaryed even him
Careful, careful, Mark...Sister Nun of the Above, now the
Mother SUPERIOR is BACK, ruler in hand, ready to spank the
knuckles of anyone who DARES say anything negative about
the blessed, sacred ARRL!
I was literally going back 50 years to 1956 and remembering
how both the electronics hobby and the (much, much bigger)
electronics industry was doing...preparing to move to
California and the aerospace industries that year. Frankly,
the ARRL wasn't keeping up with the electronics industry
other than keeping QST afloat with advertising revenue.
Since they were largely unaware (from their publications)
what the (then) long-haul radio communications were doing,
they couldn't really decide which way to go for amateurs.
Their decisions were based largely on ignorance, especially
that of SSB. The commercial-military folks on HF were already
USING SSB on HF and had been doing it for over two decades by
1956...yet the ARRL wanted amateurs to believe that "amateur
radio 'pioneered' SSB." :-) Bullshit.
>> >yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
>> >just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
>> >child of the ARRL
>>
>> It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
>> never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
>> RAND, and STATUS. That was VERY important to the controlling
>> coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
>> others...in a hobby activity.
>>
>> What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
>> "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
>> and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship. The
>> morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
>> far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
>> morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
>> service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
>> all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
>> decades after the 1930s.
>
>and therby betraying the fundental core of the service, a change that
>needs to removed altogether if possible hence my fovoring a oe 2 class
>license system with the prevedlges indentical to all the lclasses that
>exist (with modern radio I reconize it may be needed to have some sort
>of up or out license with 10 to do it becuase of the volume of material
>but the classes should be equal in preveledge and the class should not
>be a publicly accsable (except on an ARS wide) basis
Well, it's a subject which is damn clear to outside observers
but the Believers are about to strike a blow for the Church of
St. Hiram. Mother SIPERIOR is back in her habit of
one-liner sentences thinking she can slay the dragons (of her
mind) which defile the sanctity of the Newington folks who
"know what is good for amateur radio!" :-)
Prior to 1990 there were already FIVE different license classes
in US amateur radio. The no-code Technician class made it SIX.
A decade later the FCC chopped that in half. Rightly so in my
estimation. It had gotten literally Byzantine in structure with
the privileged bandplans and who could use what mode. It was
worse than the commercial-professional operator licenses. The
Restructuring was sorely needed for the avocational activities.
The worst blow to the rank-status-title morsemen was cutting
the code test rate down to a single, low one, well below the
exhaulted, royal rate of 20 WPM that they overused for
bragging rights before 1998. :-) Those extra super special
morsemen lost NO PRIVILEGES ON THE BANDS but the sky fell in
on their bragging rights. Boo-hoo, poor morsemen. :-)
>> Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
>> "ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
>> before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
>> conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
>> over most of the world via PCs and the Internet. Why
>> IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
>> 1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
>> to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
>> and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
>> If some dumbshit wants to moralize about "working" and
>> "investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
>> and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
>> about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
>> abuse/mis-use. If these self-styled emperors want to
>> flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
>> on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).
>
>and inccreasingly cold and unfeeling and failing to fufill the debt
>they owe to those that came before them
I disagree with you a bit...nobody "owes" anything
other than bill payments, Mark.
The rabid amateur morsemen are just full of themselves.
They have lost their ability to RULE by that singular
skill, are now worried that they might lose all their
rank, title, status, and privileges when the code test
is finally eliminated. Few of them seem to have much
for themselves beyond that bragging right. <shrug>
LenAn...@ieee.org
>N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>Jim, welcome back. I guess Coslo's BBS was a little too quiet?
>
>billy beeper
Ahem...Coslo's attempt at an amateur radio "forum" hasn't had
a new posting since 20 Feb 06. Seven months of quiet.
Or maybe all the new posts got tangled with his "to the edge
of space" balloon experiment and floated off? :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
[Mother Superior strides out of the cloister, knuckle-spank
ruler carried like a baton, the Book of Common Maxims
under her arm...]
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
>> >the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
>> >to the ARRL what 50 years ago
>>
>> I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
>> sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
>> of US radio amtaeurs.
>
>The FCC thought so too - well into the 1970s.
Pure and simple bullshit, Mother. Prior to the
1990s the FCC was pressured constantly by just one
amateur organization - the ARRL. Since amateur radio
has NOT been a priority item on the FCC's tasks, the
FCC just let the ARRL have what the ARRL wanted.
After all, the ARRL claimed it "spoke for the
amateur" even though their membership was a minority
of never more than a quarter of all licensees.
>> Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
>> long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
>> life) Hiram Percy Maxim.
>
>Maxim died in 1936. 1956 was twenty years later.
Twenty years is a "long time" to you? Poor baby.
Is this more Ruler-Spank, Mother?
>> "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
>> to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.
>
>He also promoted many other things on those pages, such as technical
>progress, operating skills, public service, and the observance of
>government regulations.
Was he a Saint to you, Mother Superior?
>> The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
>> enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
>> that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.
>
>Publications were one way to support the organization.
The ONLY way to support so many services that non-
members could do themselves. Three years ago the reported
profit of the ARRL to the IRS was 12 MILLION dollars. That
kind of cash inflow does NOT come solely from membership.
>> ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
>> formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
>> organization, the Radio Club of America.
>
>But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
>- just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
>organization.
You are in error, Mother, but further argument on that is
useless. The League is your shepherd, you shall not want.
>> There were lots of
>> "national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
>> dropped out.
>
>Name some.
Go read Thomas H. White's online Radio History from the
beginning to about 1927. White is a much better historian
than yourself.
>> RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
>> amateur radio.
>
>It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
>honorary and historical.
In other words, you aren't a member!
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
>> presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
>> retainer from the ARRL.
>
>There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
>contacting FCC directly.
Do YOU have a legal firm on retainer, Mother? Or do you
have a dental retainer, hoping to "take a bite" out of
your perceived anti-morse "crime?"
>> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
>> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
>> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
>
>Why are you suspicious, Len?
ARRL is NOT a government body. They are a private
organization accountable to no one but themselves,
yet they ACT like they are some exhaulted "representative"
of ALL radio amateurs. [ARRL membership hasn't gotten
more than a quarter of all amateur radio licensees in
a long time...if ever]
ARRL represents ONLY the membership and that mambership
is a MINORITY of all amateur radio licensees in the USA.
>Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
>and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
"Anyone" could but extremely few did. Spend some
time in the Reading Room in DC and come back with
your results.
>Back in the 1960s, when the changes known as "incentive licensing" were
>being debated, FCC received over 6000 comments from individuals and
>groups. There were at least 10 proposals besides the ARRL's. Those
>other proposals were taken seriously enough by FCC to get RM numbers.
Did you actually count all those yourself? :-)
Tsk, that was before your time, Mother, before you
were Sister Nun of the Above. You are just
paraphrasing another on that. Don't get your habit
in a bind "reporting things" you weren't a part of.
>> What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
>> pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
>> changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
>> (by administrations) morse testing for any license having
>> below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
>> administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
>> WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.
>
>Not true! Not true at all, Len.
The hell it isn't. Take off your cowl and LOOK.
>The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their
>policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to
>ITU-R S25.5.
More errors. That didn't change until 2003.
>Given the strong support from many other member countries to change
>S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would
>be majority support to change S25.5.
A NO-OPINION position is a face-saving trick. If the vote
went one way, the ARRL could claim it "supported" it by "not
opposing it." If the vote went the other way, the League
was "not responsible" for it. It's a trick used in politics
for years in many other endeavors.
>In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
>test for General but retaining it for Extra.
Mother, the ARRL's "Petition" (a rather rambling document)
is public view. Do NOT tell me what it "was about."
Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. You are
NOT needed as some "interpreter."
>The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
>eliminated for General.
>
>The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
>retained for Extra.
You read each and every one of them, Mother? I don't think
so. For your sins say 5000 Hail Hirams.
>The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
>they *are* majorities.
ARRL is a MINORITY "representative." Face the cold, hard fact.
>> That was VERY important to the controlling
>> coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
>> others...in a hobby activity.
>
>Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len.
Bullshit. It is CLEAR to anyone NOT a Believer
in the sanctity and nobility of the ARRL.
>Do try to get your history straight.
It is MUCH "straighter" than yours, Mother. I have MORE of
history of ALL radio than you after you've been spoon-fed
information dribbled out to you by the League.
>The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
>*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
>1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
>being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
>earlier.
If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes
of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-)
Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED.
>btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
>rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.
Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion
routine again. That's SO transparent.
>> What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
>> "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
>> and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.
>
>How so?
What part of my paragraph is unclear to you? Do you need
it translated to Latin? What?
>How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?
You tell us. That's not part of the thread but one of
your attempts at diversion into another subject. Tsk.
>Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
>War?
Oh, oh, Mother Superior strips off her habit to
reveal - ta-da! - JIMMY NOSERVE, expert on military
anything because he READ about it yet never served his
country in the military!
Jimmy Noserve should inform the group of his fantastic
wartime experience using "CW" with the AN/PRC-25 and
the AN/PRC-77!!!
>> The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
>> that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
>> guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism.
>
>Should accomplishment not be rewarded?
VANITY is an "accomplishment?!?" Review your Deadly
Sins, sweetums.
>> Combining
>> "vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect
>> setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they
>> WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the
>> window...rank, status, title RULED.
>
>btw, Len, did you ever manage to get your Extra out of the box? It's
>been more than six and a half years now...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mother, I didn't lay on the floor in the sign of the ARRL
diamond to take a lifetime VOW in the Church of St. Hiram.
BWAAAAAAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I changed my mind, Jimmy Noserve. Several times
before 6 1/2 years ago. Human beings with free will
are allowed to do that. Really. I see NO point in
re-creating "skills" of what was long ago and not
used in the radio world today...other than by
some amateurs play-acting "pioneering" long-dead
technology. If you don't like that opinion, TS for
you.
If I want to volunteer in emergency communications I
will go to the California ACS. Ham license (from FCC
or FDA) is not needed. I can do several things, all
volunteer, which do NOT need manual telegraphy skills.
I don't need to do that since I know that the present
City-County-State emergency communications are run
well by regular staff, proven by REAL emergencies.
>Do you have a need to look down on everyone?
All that are shorter than I...at least to see them clearly
wearing bifocals. :-)
Why are you looking down on professionals, Jimmy
Noserve? Aren't you one of them? Or did you lose
your job (whatever that was someplace)?
>How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code
>test is eliminated?
BRAGGING RIGHTS, sweetums. SELF-PERCEPTION as a mighty
"radio operator" (circa 1930s). Loss of the rabid
olde-tyme morsemen's ability to LOOK DOWN ON ALL WHO
DON'T CARE FOR MORSEMANSHIP.
Are you BLIND? Why can't you understand what I wrote?
Do you need Remedial English or what?
YOU do all of the above, desperately trying to disguise
it by attempting humiliation of all those who disagree
with you.
>> So much so that I made a career choice of
>> it while studying for an entirely different sort of
>> work.
>
>Funded by the taxpayers, too.
Not beyond half a year at Art Center School of Design
(the old campus on 3rd Street, not the new one in
Pasadena). Changing majors made me inelligible for
G. I. Bill funding according to regulations at the time,
according to the VA. "Call the VA," Jimmy.
"Call the VA!" BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
No matter. I was employed in electronics in aerospace,
good job. Self-learning allowed me to rise in the
ranks to have design responsibility well before getting
that sheepskin.
But, in 1957 YOU were NOT a "taxpayer," Jimmy.
I DID serve my country in the US Army. You NEVER
served in any military branch of the United States,
yet you are so very judgemental and SUPERIOR to
those of us who did serve. You claim to be "expert"
in things before your time, especially grand details
of military action and realpolitic...just from
READING about them.
>> I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
>> seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
>> long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working.
>
>Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several
>hundred people trained to do the job.
"Several hundred people?!?" WTF, Jimmie Noserve, do
you now insist on a TO&E breakdown? Incredible.
We've already HAD this discussion in here, Jimmy. ADA
transmitters had less than a hundred personnel on four
operating teams keeping the circuits running 24/7 on HF.
You need details? Go here:
http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/My3Years.pdf
describes what I did, what others did, where and what it
was. 6 MB file size, takes about 19 minutes download over
dial-up.
YOU NEVER did anything close to that, Jimmie Noserve.
You are envious and trying to mask that envy. Be nice.
>That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do -
>self-funded and largely self-trained.
Sorry, sweetums, you are WRONG when you go into that
song-and-dance. Talk to some of the ex-USN Chiefs about
being "self-trained" on equipment "self-funded." :-) Not
only that, but they got three hots and a cot plus pay.
Are you so ignorant that you think the US military
communications operates like ham radio?!?!? Incredible.
Well, you've NEVER done that, so I have to cut you some
slack. [MARS is NOT an example of regular military
communications]
I'm NOT judgemental about "what amateurs do," sweetie,
I'm talking about GETTING INTO amateur radio, the
FEDERAL REGULATIONS pertaining to GETTING a license.
Unless there was a Revolution last night, the US
government and the US Constitution still allows us
CITIZENS to petition our government. Regardless of
what you think/believe, amateurs do NOT "rule" US
amateur radio nor have the final say-so on it. Really.
>Is youth somehow wrong, Len?
"Youth is wasted on the young." :-) Quote of someone...:-)
I enjoyed mine despite your making fun of it. :-)
YOU aren't young anymore, Jimmy. Face the fact. Time
doesn't stand still for any of us. Living in the PAST
as you love to do is your own delusion.
>What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you
>that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react?
I'd tell him flat out:
1. "Fuck off!"
2. "Get some mental help, dude, you are twisted."
Jimmie Noserve, you've NEVER had any military experience
yet you keep on as if you did. Why is that? Arrogance?
Presumption of being "better" than those who served? Why?
Why do you believe YOU are so SUPERIOR that YOU can tell
others what to do?
>Then why do you tell us so much about your past?
That's where you LOVE to live, Jimmie. I'm just trying
to make you feel at-ease. :-)
You LOVE play-acting like you are "pioneering radio."
Sorry, Jimmy, that was done long ago. By others. NOT
you.
>> If these self-styled emperors want to
>> flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
>> on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).
>
>Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....
Hardly. :-) What YOU don't like is MY mirror being held
up to show YOU YOUR reflection. BOOO! :-)
>Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?
Not really. Flipping others' paradigms takes a LONG time.
Especially those who've been thoroughly brainwashed by
you-know-what organization. Why are YOU so edgy and
combative about no-code-test-advocates' postings? You
continue to attack bits and pieces of such postings well
out of context, trying to divert attention from what we say.
Yet you completely CONDONE identifiable garbage-mouths
because of their amateur licenses requiring code testing.
Looks to me like you are in FEAR of losing your bragging
rights, possibly your beloved ARRL when the Archaic
Radiotelegraphy Society fades away...replaced by new
generations that don't care for your antiquated ideals.
Put the habit back on, Mother SUPERIOR. Go thee and say
those 5000 Hail Hirams, then pray for your soul's
redemption.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
>> inbred bigoted morsemen in here.
>
>> Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
>> Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
>> Must be your own four neurons in the way.
>>
>Gee, Len....do you think posting that way will cause people to change
>their minds and agree with you?
Oh, oh, here comes Mother Superior again, waving
her ruler, a weapon of morale destruction! :-)
>Do you think FCC would be convinced by such arguments?
Mother, I'm NOT posting "to the FCC" here...just to a
mixed group that includes rabid morsewomen such as
yourself.
>Is that sort of posting your idea of how a "professional" behaves?
Tsk, tsk, Mother, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
In here the AMATEURS hang out. Ergo, one must adopt
language these AMATEURS us. If that means offending
you, TS.
You don't like that? Go back to the cloister. Pray for
redemption of your soul after being among those you
perceive as evil no-coders. :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
> Dave Heil wrote:
> >
> bad night for DX?
"Mr. Ambassador" had a baaaaaad century.... :-)
Just one more example why US Foreign Policy is not as good
as it could be, courtesy of the State Department. :-)
an old friend
might have moved up 911 a good decade
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Slow Code
news:1157387085.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I think we got k00k material here.
Slow Code
news:1157337544.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
You got cut & paste down pretty good Mark. Now if you could only get
amateur radio down, you could be a real ham and not a dumbed down one.
SC
Slow Code
news:1157387085.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Ping real Hams,
You'll want to use CW if you ever have to save len Anderson, that
should help him change his brain cell regarding the value of Morse.
Thanks
73
Sc
an old friend
Slow Code wrote:
> "LenAn...@ieee.org" <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:1157387085.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > From: "an old friend" on Sun, Sep 3 2006 2:41 pm
slow code:kook on parade
Dave Heil
> From: N2...@AOL.COM on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:49 pm
>
> [Mother Superior strides out of the cloister, knuckle-spank
> ruler carried like a baton, the Book of Common Maxims
> under her arm...]
What are you smokin', Pops?
>
>>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>>From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
>
>
>>>>the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
>>>>to the ARRL what 50 years ago
>>>
>>> I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
>>> sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
>>> of US radio amtaeurs.
>>
>>The FCC thought so too - well into the 1970s.
>
>
> Pure and simple bullshit, Mother. Prior to the
> 1990s the FCC was pressured constantly by just one
> amateur organization - the ARRL.
Show us. Prove it. Provide facts.
> Since amateur radio
> has NOT been a priority item on the FCC's tasks, the
> FCC just let the ARRL have what the ARRL wanted.
Show us. Prove it. Provide facts.
> After all, the ARRL claimed it "spoke for the
> amateur" even though their membership was a minority
> of never more than a quarter of all licensees.
Show us one U.S. amateur radio organization with even 20% of the ARRL's
membership.
>
>>> Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
>>> long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
>>> life) Hiram Percy Maxim.
>>
>>Maxim died in 1936. 1956 was twenty years later.
>
>
> Twenty years is a "long time" to you? Poor baby.
Twenty years is a long time to anyone, Len. Are you wearing the same
socks you wore twenty years ago?
> Is this more Ruler-Spank, Mother?
Well, you certainly were spanked.
>
>>> "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
>>> to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.
>>
>>He also promoted many other things on those pages, such as technical
>>progress, operating skills, public service, and the observance of
>>government regulations.
>
>
> Was he a Saint to you, Mother Superior?
Your lack of comment to Jim's response is noted. Jim's statement was is
correct. Yours was manipulated.
>
>>> The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
>>> enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
>>> that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.
>>
>>Publications were one way to support the organization.
>
>
> The ONLY way to support so many services that non-
> members could do themselves.
Why does it bother you that members see a perceived benefit and that
they avail themselves of it? Why would it bother you that the ARRL
produces publications and sells them?
> Three years ago the reported
> profit of the ARRL to the IRS was 12 MILLION dollars. That
> kind of cash inflow does NOT come solely from membership.
In this day and age, 12 million dollars isn't a great sum for an
organization the size of the ARRL. How much money does come from
membership, Len? Would it be fair to say that membership dues make up
40% of the total? The League charges for things like DXCC applications,
subsequent QSL card submissions, credits from LOTW and the like. These
services are used by non-members as well as members. Do you believe the
League should provide free services to non-members? What's your beef?
You aren't a member and aren't likely to be a member of the ARRL.
>
>
>>> ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
>>> formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
>>> organization, the Radio Club of America.
>>
>>But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
>>- just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
>>organization.
>
>
> You are in error, Mother, but further argument on that is
> useless. The League is your shepherd, you shall not want.
Tell us where the error is, Len. What erroneous statement was made by Jim?
>
>>> There were lots of
>>> "national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
>>> dropped out.
>>
>>Name some.
>
>
> Go read Thomas H. White's online Radio History from the
> beginning to about 1927. White is a much better historian
> than yourself.
You made the claim. I'd have guessed that you wouldn't have minded
backing it up. Perhaps you're feeling less confident about your statement.
>
>>> RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
>>> amateur radio.
>>
>>It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
>>honorary and historical.
>
>
> In other words, you aren't a member!
>
> BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The ARRL--you aren't a member!!!!!!!!!!
Amateur Radio--you aren't a participant!!!!!!!!
BWAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
>
>>> Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
>>> presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
>>> retainer from the ARRL.
>>
>>There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
>>contacting FCC directly.
>
>
> Do YOU have a legal firm on retainer, Mother? Or do you
> have a dental retainer, hoping to "take a bite" out of
> your perceived anti-morse "crime?"
It's alright if you couldn't think of anything with which to respond to
Jim, Leonard.
>>> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
>>> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
>>> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
>>
>>Why are you suspicious, Len?
>
>
> ARRL is NOT a government body.
Who said it was a government body and why would it be a government body?
> They are a private
> organization accountable to no one but themselves,
"It", Len. It is a private organization, accountable only to its members.
> yet they ACT like they are some exhaulted "representative"
> of ALL radio amateurs.
"It", Len. "Exalted", Len.
> [ARRL membership hasn't gotten
> more than a quarter of all amateur radio licensees in
> a long time...if ever]
And?
> ARRL represents ONLY the membership and that mambership
> is a MINORITY of all amateur radio licensees in the USA.
That MINORITY is made up of about 130,000 radio amateurs.
>>Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
>>and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
>
>
> "Anyone" could but extremely few did. Spend some
> time in the Reading Room in DC and come back with
> your results.
Are you giving orders again, Len?
>
>
>>Back in the 1960s, when the changes known as "incentive licensing" were
>>being debated, FCC received over 6000 comments from individuals and
>>groups. There were at least 10 proposals besides the ARRL's. Those
>>other proposals were taken seriously enough by FCC to get RM numbers.
>
>
> Did you actually count all those yourself? :-)
He provided you figures, Len. Those figures make your earlier statement
an incorrect one.
> Tsk, that was before your time, Mother, before you
> were Sister Nun of the Above. You are just
> paraphrasing another on that. Don't get your habit
> in a bind "reporting things" you weren't a part of.
Remember your statement when it comes time to defend your claims about
the ARRL and H. P. Maxim.
>>In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
>>test for General but retaining it for Extra.
>
>
> Mother, the ARRL's "Petition" (a rather rambling document)
> is public view. Do NOT tell me what it "was about."
Rather than read it online, why not follow your own advice and visit the
reading room in Washington, Len?
> Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. You are
> NOT needed as some "interpreter."
Remember your statement when making your claims about the ARRL, Len.
>
>>The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
>>eliminated for General.
>>
>>The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
>>retained for Extra.
>
>
> You read each and every one of them, Mother? I don't think
> so. For your sins say 5000 Hail Hirams.
>
>
>>The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
>>they *are* majorities.
>
>
> ARRL is a MINORITY "representative." Face the cold, hard fact.
You didn't address Jim's statement, Len. Couldn't you counter it?
>
>
>>> That was VERY important to the controlling
>>> coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
>>> others...in a hobby activity.
>>
>>Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len.
>
>
> Bullshit. It is CLEAR to anyone NOT a Believer
> in the sanctity and nobility of the ARRL.
You don't have to believe anything about the ARRL, Len. You aren't a
member and you aren't a radio amateur. Be satisfied to be as you are.
>
>>Do try to get your history straight.
>
>
> It is MUCH "straighter" than yours, Mother. I have MORE of
> history of ALL radio than you after you've been spoon-fed
> information dribbled out to you by the League.
Prove it. Your previous statement would lead one to believe that there
are large gaps in your knowledge base.
>
>>The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
>>*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
>>1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
>>being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
>>earlier.
>
>
> If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes
> of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-)
Can you say "Novice", "Technician", "Conditional", "General", "Amateur
Extra"? Do you know that there were holdovers from another class of
license in addition? Doesn't Thomas White's history have any of this info?
> Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED.
Wipe the egg off your mug, Leonard.
>
>>btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
>>rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.
>
>
> Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion
> routine again. That's SO transparent.
He gave you facts again, Len. They whizzed right by you.
>
>>> What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
>>> "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
>>> and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.
>>
>>How so?
>
>
> What part of my paragraph is unclear to you? Do you need
> it translated to Latin? What?
He asked legit questions, Len. You provided no answer.
>
>
>>How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?
>
>
> You tell us. That's not part of the thread but one of
> your attempts at diversion into another subject. Tsk.
>
>
>>Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
>>War?
>
>
> Oh, oh, Mother Superior strips off her habit to
> reveal - ta-da! - JIMMY NOSERVE, expert on military
> anything because he READ about it yet never served his
> country in the military!
This "Mother Superior", "Nun of the Above", "Jimmy Noserve" stuff--would
that be considered your shouting of denigrations, Len?
Dave K8MN
Bakb0ne
Morse has no value in todays society...
And I agree "slow code:kook on parade"
N2...@aol.com
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> >>From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
> >> ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
> >> formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
> >> organization, the Radio Club of America.
> > But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
> > - just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
> > organization.
> >
> > One of the cofounders, Charles H. Stewart, 3ZS, lived right here in
> > Radnor, PA. Hardly "local" in those days.
>
> Heck, Jim, you're going to ruin one of Leonard's rants.
I'm just pointing out some plain, simple facts.
> Stewart, as I recall, succeeded HPM.
You are confusing Charles H. Stewart with Kenneth B. Warner. It was KBW
who succeeded HPM.
KBW was a major part of ARRL from the early days until his death in the
late 1940s. IMHO he was as important in the 1930s and 40s as Maxim was
in the teens and 20s. KBW is just not as well known.
> >> There were lots of
> >> "national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
> >> dropped out.
> > Name some.
> >> RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
> >> amateur radio.
> > It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
> > honorary and historical.
> Why are those guys always living in the past? ;-o
Well, there you have it.
> >> Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
> >> presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
> >> retainer from the ARRL.
> > There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
> > contacting FCC directly.
> >> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
> >> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
> >> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
> > Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
> > and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
> Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is
> suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved.
Have you forgotten the profile already?
> >> That changed dramatically once the FCC got their website
> >> going and ramped up to take Comments electronically. The
> >> ARRL had to retain a second firm in DC for lobbying.
> > All ECFS did was to make it easier to petition and comment.
> Correct. It also saved a stamp. In the case of a number of Len's
> comments, it saved him lots of stamps.
It should be remembered that, back in 1998, Len couldn't get ECFS to
work for him and had to mail his comments to FCC. Meanwhile, thousands
of us whom he denigrates had no problem filing comments online, even
then.
> >> The evidence is an observation of the number and kind of
> >> Comments on 98-143 "restructuring" versus Comments on
> >> all those Petitions and last year's NPRM concerning code
> >> testing elimination. The pro-code-test advocates' Comments
> >> were straight out of the League hymn book about morsemanship
> >> with a few adding in nebulous advantages for "homeland
> >> security" necessities! [those Petitions began after 11 Sep
> >> 01]
> > ??
> You know--the ARRL hymnal. It's filled with songs rallying government
> to the ARRL. Len's sense of the surreal is working overtime.
Ah - now I understand.
> > The fact is that the majority of individuals who commented supported
> > the retention of at least some Morse Code testing. The majority also
> > supported elimination of the Morse Code test for the General Class
> > license.
However, the most likely outcome is that FCC will just drop Element 1
completely. The surprising thing is that it has taken so long.
> >> What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
> >> pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
> >> changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
> >> (by administrations) morse testing for any license having
> >> below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
> >> administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
> >> WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.
> > Not true! Not true at all, Len.
> > The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their
> > policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to
> > ITU-R S25.5.
> > Given the strong support from many other member countries to change
> > S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would
> > be majority support to change S25.5.
> >> After WRC-03 the League took a neutral stance, neither for
> >> nor against code testing in the USA. It's still a "ARRL
> >> versus the World" situation.
> > Wrong again, Len!
> > In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
> > test for General but retaining it for Extra.
> Len isn't going to let facts stand in his way. His mind is made up.
Like concrete: all mixed up and firmly set.
> > The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
> > eliminated for General.
> > The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
> > retained for Extra.
> > The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
> > they *are* majorities.
> >>>>>> Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
> >>>>>>millennium.
> >>>>>And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.
> >>>> Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
> >>>> inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
> >>>> reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)
> >>>yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
> >>>just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
> >>>child of the ARRL
> >> It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
> >> never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
> >> RAND, and STATUS.
> > "RAND"?
> > Do you mean Remington Rand, Ayn Rand, or the South African monetary
> > unit?
> It is obviously a reference to the Rand Corporation--all very hush hush.
I disagree!
Remington Rand wasn't part of Len's CV.
Ayn Rand promoted her philosophy of Objectivism, which demanded strict
adherence to reality, not the surreal. Also, a core value of
Objectivism was the value of the individual and individual
accomplishment. Not something Len likes to acknowledge, unless it's
*his* personal value and accomplishment.
OTOH, Len's value system places a high value on being a "professional"
(meaning being paid for something) and how much material wealth a
person has amassed (so they can pay CASH for things like Japanese-made
general-coverage receivers).
So it must be the South African rand...
> It is abundantly clear that Len's mind is made up. He KNOWS what
> incentive licensing was about.
Facts notwithstanding.
> >> That was VERY important to the controlling
> >> coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
> >> others...in a hobby activity.
> > Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len. Do try to get your
> > history straight.
> > The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
> > *return* to a system something like that which existed before February
> > 1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
> > being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
> > earlier.
> > btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
> > rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.
Of course Len does not know where it actually came from...
> >> What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
> >> "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
> >> and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.
> > How so?
> > Did you forget about the written tests?
> Don't ruin his rant, Jim. He needs to massage a few facts to make
> things fit with his conclusion.
Massage or mangle?
Fact is, ARRL proposed in 1963 that there be *no* additional code
testing for full privileges - just an additional written test.
> >> The
> >> morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
> >> far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
> >> morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
> >> service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
> >> all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
> >> decades after the 1930s.
> > How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?
Let's see...there were the military, particularly the US Navy and Coast
Guard, the maritime services, various government agencies, some press
services, and of course amateur radio.
> > Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
> > War?
> >> The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
> >> that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
> >> guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism.
> > Should accomplishment not be rewarded?
> Len shouldn't confuse the Vanity Callsign System with the earlier FCC
> decisions, beginning in 1968 to award 1x2 calls to those who held the
> Extra and had been licensed for a certan number of years.
Actually, there were forms of "vanity" callsigns long before 1968. In
fact, if you search qrz.com, you may still be able to find amateurs
with 1x2 callsigns who are not Extras.
> That was
> later modified to include any Extra Class licensee without a minimum
> number of years licensed. There was no periodic fee charged for those
> callsign changes.
That's how I got N2EY in 1977. I simply asked FCC for a 1x2 when I
moved to New York State, and it was sequentially issued. I'd been an
Extra for seven years by then.
> That it chafes Len, is tough.
All sorts of things chafe Len.
Actually there's a bit more to it than that.
If you recall, Len once set out to get an amateur license, and
reportedly got up to 7 or 8 wpm before he gave up on learning Morse
Code.
You see, learning Morse Code was "hard work" for Len back then.
He's apparently one of those folks who does "book learnin'" rather
easily - let him read something and he'll lecture you on it endlessly.
Some of what he says will actually be right, too.
But learning Morse Code to the 13 wpm level needed for a General
license turned out to be not so easy for Len, so he has held a grudge
about it for decades.
Now you may wonder why, if Len could do 7 or 8 wpm at one point, he
didn't just get a Novice license, and improve his Morse Code skills by
operating, as most of us did.
The answer should be obvious: No way would Len allow himself to be
classified as a "Novice". That license did not carry the appropriate
title or status for him.
> >> They LIKE that. So much so that they are
> >> in great personal fear of losing that very precious rank,
> >> status, title, and privilege that MIGHT happen if the
> >> code test is eliminated.
> > How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code
> > test is eliminated?
> >> They will LOSE their "better
> >> than you" rationalization.
> > How?
> > If they really are better than you, they'll still be better without the
> > test. And vice-versa.
> Precisely. They'll also have much more experience in amateur radio than
> Leonard H. Anderson. Those who are proficient in the use of Morse, will
> always be a leg up on Leonard.
So what? People have all kinds of skills, experience, etc. I'm sure
there are things where Len has more experience/knowledge/skill than I,
and things where I have more experience/knowledge/skill than he.
The former doesn't bother me, but the latter seems to bother him no
end.
> >> Internally the sky will have
> >> fallen on their self-perceptions.
> >> Personally, I think radio and electronics is totally
> >> fascinating.
> > Me too. Amateur radio particularly.
> Seconded. How it must burn to have professed a decades-long interest in
> something only to remain an outsider.
An outsider by choice. There has been a US amateur radio license with
no Morse Code test for the past 15-1/2 years. All other classes of US
amateur radio license have required only a 5 wpm code test since 2000.
> >> So much so that I made a career choice of
> >> it while studying for an entirely different sort of
> >> work.
> > Funded by the taxpayers, too.
> ...and you'll note that Len is back to talking careers.
Think of the South African rand.
> That's one of
> the wonderful things about amateur radio. One can work in something
> quite far afield from radio and still have a rich and rewarding
> experience in amateur radio. One of my local friends works at a funeral
> home. One works as a jail guard. One is a retired teacher. All find
> much enjoyment in amateur radio.
Exactly. Amateur radio is "radio for its own sake".
> >> Professional work, not some amateur dabbling,
> >> yet I liked to make electronic things in my home
> >> workshop.
> > Does being paid for something make someone automatically "better", Len?
> It apparently does, unless it something made through dabbling in his
> home workshop.
In case you've forgotten, Len did some writing for the now-defunct
amateur radio magazine "ham radio". He got paid for those articles, of
course. None of his articles were actual projects, though.
> >> Things other than work-related tasks. It
> >> is FUN, personally rewarding, not "work."
> > But not rewarding enough for you to get an amateur radio license, it
> > seems.
> ...and learning morse would apparently be "work" for Leonard.
"hard work", actually. That's why he gave up on it.
> > Or have you gotten that Extra out of its box, as you told us you were
> > going to do, way back on January 19, 2000?
> He talks the talk, but has trouble with the walk.
>
> >> I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
> >> seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
> >> long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working.
> > Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several
> > hundred people trained to do the job.
> It is always Big Time in the Len recounting. At least he has dropped
> the claim that HE worked 24/7. My personal experience with PROFESSIONAL
> long haul circuits that HAD to be kept working is that they don't
> always. When a healthy solar flare comes along, you might as well mail
> 'em a letter.
Looks like a deep seated insecurity on Len's part, though.
> > That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do -
> > self-funded and largely self-trained.
> >> Years
> >> later some KID is trying to "moralize" me into "working
> >> on morsemanship?"
> > Is youth somehow wrong, Len?
> You surely remember what he has said about CHILDREN in the past.
Oh yes - something about his difficulty including them in what he sees
as an adult activity. Also, he proposed a minimum age requirement for
an amateur license even though he had absolutely no evidence of
problems caused by the licensing of young people. Then there's his
accusating the ARRL and some VEs of "fraud" in licensing some young
children.
> >> He (or she) can go shove it
> >> somewhere...until he (or she) can prove they've done
> >> more than I in radio communications...which they have
> >> NOT done yet in here.
> > I see.
> > What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you
> > that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react?
> How about if someone younger than Len, but with more experience in radio
> told him?
See the profile...it wouldn't matter.
> >> Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
> >> "ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
> >> before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
> >> conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
> >> over most of the world via PCs and the Internet.
> > What about your posting of January 19, 2000?
> In addition to that, what about the fact that he is paying for internet
> service and that invariably, that internet circuit goes through wires
> somewhere? The cellular telephone is a wonderful thing too, but it
> isn't a substitute for amateur radio. It'd be pricey too.
> >> Why
> >> IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
> >> 1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
> >> to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
> >> and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
> > Then why do you tell us so much about your past?
> If he didn't, he couldn't regale us with tales of his days in Big Time
> HF radio!
> > btw, if you are *not* interested in becoming a ham, why are you so
> > vocal about the requirements?
>
> Didn't you know, Jim? Len's made himself an ADVOCATE for
> something-or-other.
Keeping real estate zoning regulations as they were 40+ years ago?
> >> If some dumbshit wants to moralize about "working" and
> >> "investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
> >> and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
> >> about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
> >> abuse/mis-use.
> > You sure seem to spend a lot of effort arguing about it, though.
> > Why?
> His life is otherwise empty, depsite the comfortable income, two
> mortgage-free homes and the like. Maybe Len can take a part-time job as
> bag boy at Ralph's.
No, Ralph's requires that everything be Pretty Good. Including the
ketchup.
> >> If these self-styled emperors want to
> >> flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
> >> on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).
> > Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....
> Len often acts ugly. I prefer not to think of him as naked.
Please don't go there...
> > Gee, Len, it's been more than three years since the ITU treaty changed.
> > Some countries have eliminated Morse Code testing, some haven't, and at
> > least one (Canada) has worked out a unique solution to the debate.
> > Meanwhile the USA rules on the subject haven't changed since 2000.
> > Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?
> Whether Len is ever a radio amateur or not, I'm not going to lose any
> sleep over it.
Nor I. Besides, it's just not going to happen.
73 de Jim, N2EY
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
"To Infinity And Beyond!!!"
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> >> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
> >> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
> >> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
> >
> >
> > Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
> > and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
>
> Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is
> suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved.
Interesting how Carl was barred from running for section office.
Professional talent need not apply - we only want amateurs.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
and yet no problem for the ARRL's marketing director to hop over to
Yeasu
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.com wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 18:13:27 -0700, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Heil wrote:
> >> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> >> >> ARRL kept promoting themselves as
> >> >> "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
> >> >> suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
> >> > and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.
> >>
> >> Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is
> >> suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved.
> >
> >Interesting how Carl was barred from running for section office.
> >Professional talent need not apply - we only want amateurs.
>
> and yet no problem for the ARRL's marketing director to hop over to
> Yeasu
He is forever tainted...
N2...@aol.com
(whole bunch of Len's errors and insults snipped in the interest of
time and space)
> >The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
> >*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
> >1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
> >being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
> >earlier.
> If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes
> of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-)
Actually, there were six classes of amateur radio licenses in the USA
from 1951 until the mid-1970s. They were Novice, Technician, General,
Conditional, Advanced and Extra.
In the mid-1970s the Conditional was phased out. When a Conditional was
renewed or modified, the FCC changed the license class to General.
The number of amateur radio license classes in the USA remained at 5
until the Technician Plus lucense was created in the early 1990s.
Those are the plain and simple facts, Len.
>
> Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED.
How is it a failure for someone to state the facts?
> >btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
> >rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.
>
> Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion
> routine again. That's SO transparent.
You don't really know what caused the 1951 restructuring, do you, Len?
I didn't think so.
(rest of Len's errors snipped for sake of time and space).