QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940073.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 22.0 KB

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 04:30:12 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #73
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sat, 19 Feb 94       Volume 94 : Issue   73

Today's Topics:
       Dan Pickersgill, Ham Operator and proud of it! (5 msgs)
                    Dan Pickersgill - USENET POSTS
Morse Code testing (was Re: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses) (2 msgs)
                     rec.dan.pickersgill.asshole
                rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue (3 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:49:28 EST
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news.pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: Dan Pickersgill, Ham Operator and proud of it!
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> Well, while it is true that 2 meters has always been the local chat
> band, what I take exception with is the Big Lie(tm) perpetrated upon
> amateur radio by those who pushed through the codeless technician
> license.
>
> The license class was billed as "being for the technical people who
> don't want to do the code", and would "bring loads of new amateurs
> into the ranks who will use some of our underutilized frequency
> spectrum".
>
> Neither of these are true, and people knew the moment that the
> proposal came forth to allow voice communication below 220mhz
> that the license would simply become a loophole for CB transplants
> to gain credibility and impress their friends with the <bleep>
> that automatically comes out of their 'walkie talkie' when
> unkeyed.
>
> This isn't to say that there haven't been many GOOD people who have
> gotten their license and fit the bill according to the intent of the
> codeless license. However, I daresay that based upon my anecdotal
> evidence listening to the local VHF repeaters that these are few and
> far between.
>
> Of course, my impressions could simply be a result of the socioeconomical
> makeup of RI. RI is primarily a blue-collar state where many people do
> not have post high-school (or even a high school) education. I would
> expect that the quality of "codeless" technician in Silicon Valley to
> be immensely higher than what it is in inner-city Providence.
>
> Hmmm. Might make an interesting basis for a sociological study. Guess
> I'd better get to work on getting my research grant!
>

MORE daylight? What are you trying to do Michael, kill .policy?

Seriously, I do not deny that some 'cb transplants' have come into
amateur radio as a result of the codeless license. However, many
ex-cb'ers came to amateur radio BEFORE the codeless license.

To think that some 'users' or 'appliance operators' would not come into
ham radio as a result of the codeless license is silly. Since a great
number of Techs are 'appliance operators'. And were so, before the
advent of the codeless license. I find that many of the hams that have
had tech licenses for a year or two are moving either to digital and
UHF+ bands or are moving to upgrade and use HF.

Aside from that, the 'appliance operator', at least around here, it the
group that contributes most to Public Service. The numbers of operators
that are needed by some of the public service that we do around here can
get to be pretty large. LOTS of those that contribute time are licenses
issued after the codeless license. (I have no way of knowing if they
have code endorsement, as I do not personally know them all that well.)


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1994 07:26:07 -0600
From: swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo.NeoSoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Dan Pickersgill, Ham Operator and proud of it!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:
>
>> >Well, it has flooded our spectrum - our 2 meter spectrum. Usage
>> >on other bands has increased minimally. 2 Meters is the bright
>> >spotlight in the middle of a field at night - it attracts all
>> >the bugs.
>>
>> Of course, I predicted this long before that NPRM was passed.
>> The League originally submitted one, which would allow all privileges
>> 222 MHz and above. It seems like that would more accurately fulfill
>> the claim that they will populate underutilized bands in the VHF/UHF
>> spectrum. Oh well...
>>
>
>Now we know why Robert, EXCUSE ME, Mr. Technician! ('Classy name!') sees
>2-meter as being in bad shape. Ans: He predicted it! God forbid that
>'A great x ray technician!' could be WRONG. Better to LIE and be done
>with it...

Why Dan, there's hope for you yet!

--
Radiographers who are able to use a radiographic machine well are
great assets to the health care facility in which they are employed.

   --Dianne C. DeVos, "Basic Principles of Radiographic Exposure"

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1994 07:33:29 -0600
From: swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo.NeoSoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Dan Pickersgill, Ham Operator and proud of it!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>> The codeless technician license was claimed by many to be the saving
>> grace of amateur spectrum, that it would flood our spectrum with loads
>> of new hams.
>>
>> Well, it has flooded our spectrum - our 2 meter spectrum. Usage
>> on other bands has increased minimally. 2 Meters is the bright
>> spotlight in the middle of a field at night - it attracts all
>> the bugs.
>
>But that comment, less the obvious flame, has been true for a number of
>years (decades?). So what is the point...

The point that Michael is trying to make is that the Codeless Technician
was SUPPOSED to be someone who held superior technical and electronics
skills, and would advence the state-of-the-radio-art by virtue of their
access to our spectrum. They would also help to populate the more
underutilized bands in the VHF/UHF allocations.

Of course, what it attracted was a bunch of ex and neo-CBers, who
immediately headed straight for Two Meters. I haven't heard a single one
on 222, 440, 902, 1240, or any other band for that matter. Oh well...

--
Radiographers who are able to use a radiographic machine well are
great assets to the health care facility in which they are employed.

   --Dianne C. DeVos, "Basic Principles of Radiographic Exposure"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:02:01 GMT
From: swrinde!sgiblab!brunix!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: Dan Pickersgill, Ham Operator and proud of it!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:

   md had said:
|> > Well, it has flooded our spectrum - our 2 meter spectrum. Usage
|> > on other bands has increased minimally. 2 Meters is the bright
|> > spotlight in the middle of a field at night - it attracts all
|> > the bugs.
|>
|> But that comment, less the obvious flame, has been true for a number of
|> years (decades?). So what is the point...

Well, while it is true that 2 meters has always been the local chat
band, what I take exception with is the Big Lie(tm) perpetrated upon
amateur radio by those who pushed through the codeless technician
license.

The license class was billed as "being for the technical people who
don't want to do the code", and would "bring loads of new amateurs
into the ranks who will use some of our underutilized frequency
spectrum".

Neither of these are true, and people knew the moment that the
proposal came forth to allow voice communication below 220mhz
that the license would simply become a loophole for CB transplants
to gain credibility and impress their friends with the <bleep>
that automatically comes out of their 'walkie talkie' when
unkeyed.

This isn't to say that there haven't been many GOOD people who have
gotten their license and fit the bill according to the intent of the
codeless license. However, I daresay that based upon my anecdotal
evidence listening to the local VHF repeaters that these are few and
far between.

Of course, my impressions could simply be a result of the socioeconomical
makeup of RI. RI is primarily a blue-collar state where many people do
not have post high-school (or even a high school) education. I would
expect that the quality of "codeless" technician in Silicon Valley to
be immensely higher than what it is in inner-city Providence.

Hmmm. Might make an interesting basis for a sociological study. Guess
I'd better get to work on getting my research grant!

MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 21:15:34 GMT
From: spsgate!mogate!newsgate![e-mail]
Subject: Dan Pickersgill, Ham Operator and proud of it!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Michael P. Deignan,
[e-mail] writes:
>Well, it has flooded our spectrum - our 2 meter spectrum. Usage
>on other bands has increased minimally. 2 Meters is the bright
>spotlight in the middle of a field at night - it attracts all
>the bugs.

   Yep, I been called many things but bugs ain't one of them.  As much as
you don't want the change, I predict that within the next few years you
will see more petitions go before the FCC that deal with the insane
requirement of Morse code.  The point you missed is that our numbers are
growing, and many of us feel the resentment other hams have concerning
our license status is unwarranted.  Many of us feel that the technical
contributions that we could offer the ham community should be considered
when upgrading.  I am a firm believer in peer pressure, but not in hazing
for the fun of it.  I have stated before that hazing has a purpose in
life, and in the right place it can be beneficial, but ham radio ain't
the place......
   So Mr. Deignan, take your cheap shot while you can.......

Rick Aldom

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:55:54 GMT
From: newshub.nosc.mil!crash!beacons![e-mail]
Subject: Dan Pickersgill - USENET POSTS
To: [e-mail]

In article <2jrp5r$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:

>Out of the last 80 posts, 33 were authored by Dan Pickersgill.

Well gee, I think at least half a dozen were from Bonnie Freeland.  So what?


                                  _____________
                                 |     ___     |
    Kevin Sanders, KN6FQ         | o o \_/ o o |      Try Boatanchors
    [e-mail]        | o o  @  o o |      For A Real Lift
                                 |_____________|

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 04:14:23 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Code testing (was Re: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses)
To: [e-mail]

Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:

: > But all these points tell against the Roman alphabet, do they not?
: > Yet written language is not encryption.  Or is it?  You neglected to
: > say.  Maybe we can agree that morse bears most resemblance to a cipher
: > at 5 wpm, and gradually becomes more like spelling aloud (as opposed
: > to spelling on paper, i.e., writing), or even an aural form of the
: > manual alphabet, when you can copy whole words without having to write
: > it down?

: So morse is slang english? ...

Why the sarcastic response to a conciliatory post?

: ...Is ASCII or EBCDIC? No, it is an encryption
: method that uses (acording to this discussion) a wetware modem. Period.

But the question you ignored while merely restating your claim is: Is
writing just the same thing, "an encryption method that uses a wetware
modem?"  And furthermore, doesn't that mean you believe mastering
writing to be undesirable for that reason?  If not, why not?

-drt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker        KG2S              [e-mail]|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:27:40 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Code testing (was Re: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses)
To: [e-mail]

Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:

: A morse message is encrypted, then sent, then decrypted (by some method,
: wetware or not) to and from english. The fact that it resembles a
: language to be conditioned to encrypt/decrypt it in wetware does not
: make it a language. It, like ASCII, EBCDIC and many other encryption
: methods all do the same thing. Encrypt/decrypt english.

: I have heard may people think that because they were 'talking' in CW to
: a guy in (insert country of choice) that the guy was talking in (insert
: language of country) and not english. If he was using morse, he was
: using english, just encrypting it in morse. One could use RTTY, ASCII,
: EBCDIC or any other method, but it is still english.

: The fact that it requires conditioning to develop proficency at it does
: not make it a language. Becoming good at an athletic event requires
: conditioning also, that does not make the long jump a language.

But all these points tell against the Roman alphabet, do they not?
Yet written language is not encryption.  Or is it?  You neglected to
say.  Maybe we can agree that morse bears most resemblance to a cipher
at 5 wpm, and gradually becomes more like spelling aloud (as opposed
to spelling on paper, i.e., writing), or even an aural form of the
manual alphabet, when you can copy whole words without having to write
it down?

-drt

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1994 23:33:38 -0600
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo.NeoSoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM![e-mail]
Subject: rec.dan.pickersgill.asshole
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:
>
>> In article <[e-mail]>,
>> Rick Aldom  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >In article <[e-mail]> Michael P. Deignan,
>> >[e-mail] writes:
>> >>[e-mail] (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>> >>
>> >>> The metric by which posters should be judged is reasonability, not
>> >quantity.
>> >>
>> >>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) replies:
>> >>
>> >>> Thank you Paul.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>I prefer astronomical units to the metric system myself.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>M "billions and billions of 'code is good' postings" D
>> >
>> >
>> >Michael,
>> >  The term "metric" when used this way refers to the procedure or science
>> >used to measure, not the "metric system" as it refers to a lenght of one
>>                                                             ^^^^^^
>> >meter.  But if you had the background you too could be a clue-less tech.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>
>Don't grunt Robert, EXCUSE me Mr. Technician!, it is impolite and shows
>people how uncivilized you are.

Better to be uncivilized than illiterate. And a damn sight better than
being a Codeless Technician.

--
Radiographers who are able to use a radiographic machine well are
great assets to the health care facility in which they are employed.

   --Dianne C. DeVos, "Basic Principles of Radiographic Exposure"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:02:27 EST
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news.pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>
> [e-mail] (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>
> > The metric by which posters should be judged is reasonability, not quantity
>
> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) replies:
>
> > Thank you Paul.
>
>
> I prefer astronomical units to the metric system myself.
>
>
> M "billions and billions of 'code is good' postings" D

How is it the old adage goes? 'Figures don't lie, but liers figure...'


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 23:00:55 EST
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news.pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Rick Aldom  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >In article <[e-mail]> Michael P. Deignan,
> >[e-mail] writes:
> >>[e-mail] (Paul Flaherty) writes:
> >>
> >>> The metric by which posters should be judged is reasonability, not
> >quantity.
> >>
> >>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) replies:
> >>
> >>> Thank you Paul.
> >>
> >>
> >>I prefer astronomical units to the metric system myself.
> >>
> >>
> >>M "billions and billions of 'code is good' postings" D
> >
> >
> >Michael,
> >  The term "metric" when used this way refers to the procedure or science
> >used to measure, not the "metric system" as it refers to a lenght of one
>                                                             ^^^^^^
> >meter.  But if you had the background you too could be a clue-less tech.
>
> Uh huh.

Don't grunt Robert, EXCUSE me Mr. Technician!, it is impolite and shows
people how uncivilized you are.


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:04:58 GMT
From: swrinde!sgiblab!brunix!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Flaherty) writes:

> The metric by which posters should be judged is reasonability, not quantity.

[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) replies:

> Thank you Paul.


I prefer astronomical units to the metric system myself.


M "billions and billions of 'code is good' postings" D
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 21:35:34 GMT
From: library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chip.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Remote Control OK on 70cm not on 2m?

Robert H.B. Netzer ([e-mail]) wrote:

: This is the problem: to ID the other side of the cross-band repeater as
: you suggest (the side that is repeating the repeater output), your HT has
: to transmit on the repeater output, intentionally causing interference
: to those in the area who are listening on that frequency.
I don't understand. I am not suggesting that you id whole someone else is
xmitting on the repeater input.  I assumed that one would only ID when
the freq was clear.  If you are implying that there is a problem with
transmitting on an empty frequency that happens to have a repeater output
I can't see that as a problem. I would feel comfortable transmitting on
the squelch tail as well, but that may be up for debate.  What does the
net think is transmitting on the tail of a repeaterintentional interference?

: Unfortunately, it seems that when rigs with cross-band repeating are
: used for this application (as a "range extender" for an HT to monitor a
: conventional repeater), there's no way to comply with the FCC regs: you
: either end up not IDing one side of the cross-band repeater, or you end
: up causing interference on the (conventional) repeater output.

Again you are only interfering if you transmit over the top ofthe repeater.

: The best I've been able to do is to use only one side of the cross-band repeat
: feature as a "transmit range extender" for my HT.  Usually I can hear the repeater
: output just fine, but I can't make it to the repeater from inside a grocery store,
That's fine but only works when the HT transmits in orabove the 220 MHz,
band otherwise you would still have to switch bands to control the
mobile.

cheers,
Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [e-mail]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*     The only thing I can officially say for the University is:      *
*     What I say is in no way related to oficial University policy    *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*


------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #73
******************************