QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940491.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 11.7 KB

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 94 04:30:06 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #491
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sat, 15 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue  491

Today's Topics:
                            CW QSO Content
                             Get Over It
                        Transmitter Sale to N

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: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 08:12:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Niles Stacey)
Subject: CW QSO Content

GB>Path: miwok!nbn!sgiblab!pacbell.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.an
GB>From: [e-mail] (gregory brown)
GB>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
GB>Subject: Re: CW QSO Content
GB>Date: 12 Oct 1994 07:37:28 GMT
GB>Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
GB>Lines: 29
GB>Distribution: world
GB>Message-ID: <37g3no$[e-mail]>
GB>References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <37c5ak$4mp
GB>NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo2.unl.edu
GB>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

GB>[e-mail] wrote:
GB>: In article <37dapa$[e-mail]>,
GB>: Dr. Michael Mancini <[e-mail]> wrote:

GB>: >You know, I have friends who are trying to get their college degrees,
GB>: >and the years go by and they never get them.

GB>: Maybe you missed the point. We are not talking about qualifications. We
GB>: are talking about arbitrary governmental regulations. A person not wishing
GB>: to take a foreign language in college can find one that doesn't require it
GB>: for a degree. High speed CW testing is to HF amateur radio as a foreign
GB>: language is to a BSEE degree.

GB>: --
GB>: 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC   (All my own personal fuzzy logic, not Intel's)

GB>BZZZZZZZZT...wrong answer, Cecil.  I just love these attempts at
GB>meaningful analogies!  Arguments would be alot stronger without them.

GB>Even by Dan's figure, 38% of US amateurs regularly use CW.  I'd dare
GB>say the figure for International hams (on HF) is quite a bit higher.
GB>Now, if 38% + of all the electrical engineering literature was
GB>published in another language, you can bet your rubber sea-serpent
GB>that they would require foreign language for a BSEE.

GB>Care to try another anal-alology?



>>GB>Greg<<   ...is my middle name~!  I still think we could somewhere
with this  conversation.

N6ZVZ
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Humility is no excuse for a good personality.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 08:11:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Niles Stacey)
Subject: Get Over It

DP>Path: miwok!well!pacbell.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swi
DP>From: [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill)
DP>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
DP>Subject: Re: Get Over It
DP>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
DP>Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 02:56:00 EST
DP>References: <37ctce$[e-mail]>
DP>Organization: American Computer Experts, Cleveland, Ohio  USA
DP>X-Newsreader: Rnf 0.78
DP>Lines: 24

DP>[e-mail] (gregory brown) writes:

DP>>No, we shouldn't, Ed.  Nor should we drop any of the requirements.
DP>>The point I was making (through absurdism) is basically that you can
DP>>use the "I'm not gonna use it so why should I know it" argument

I couldn't disagree more.  How does one possibly know that one is "..not
gonna use it..."?!!!  I could never figure that out.  What if...I know,
however, what if you had NO other means of communication?  Would you
simply not communicate or would you use CW?

DP>>against almost (_almost_) every question on the test...doesn't mean
DP>>it's right.  We as amateurs have the privilege of operating _any_ of
DP>>the modes/freqs available to our license class.  And we are expected
DP>>to know what we need to know to do all this safely.  The lowest
DP>>"common" denominator is too low and defeats the purpose of the
DP>>service.

Not just safely...

DP>Exactly and any question involving rules or procedures for ensureing
DP>compliance along with saftey are valid questions. Having mode exclusive
DP>test on a pass/fail basis sets that single mode aside from all the rest.
DP>So either that mode has properties that so drastically set it aside from
DP>other modes or it is time to reconsider the pass/fail status of the mode
DP>specific testing.

...and again!  Not just safely...


Also, in answer to the other claims that CW is not a langauge!  That's
not a very valid claim either.  It depends on what you translate cw
toward.  If English is the translation, that's ok.  If any other
translation is worth the effort, that's ok as well.  I know what you're
thinking, English is the established protocol for CW, ok....so what.
Mathematics is the established norm for all speci in any language.  That
is what we hope to find as a relative focal point to communicate with
civilizations that we are as of yet unaware.

The best evidence that I have personally encountered through CW is that
it is an ARTFORM as well as a very reliable form of conveying messages
from on station to another!

best of 7 3 --  N6ZVZ
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Infinity is a self-extracting thought form.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 11:19:14 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transmitter Sale to N

Niles Stacey <[e-mail]> writes:

> * SLMR 2.1a * Polaroids: what polar bears get from sitting on icecaps

I'm sorely tempted to go post that one in rec.photo -- oughta start a flame war
that would keep Prudhoe Bay warm this winter...

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

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 11:22:53 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>

References<37irpl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <37kfob$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ARRL ROANOKE DIV. ELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Dr. Michael Mancini <[e-mail]> writes:

>Perhaps we would. The League looks out for the interests of the League.
>Period. When I got into this game back in the mid-Seventies, ARRL membership
>(with QST) was $7.50 a year. Now (last I heard) it is $30.00.

$30,000 will buy you a nice, new Buick Park Avenue.  How much did an Electra
225 cost when you got into this game?  $7,500 perhaps?

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

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 11:15:15 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>

References<37fe31$[e-mail]> <37flqb$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The code debate....my view

Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> writes:

>Where in part 97 did it say one must "put forth reasonable effort" to
>obtain a ham licnese?

Or in the Communications Act of 1934?  Or in the Constitution?

-- Ed Ellers, KD4AWQ

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

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 14:40:19 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Robert Barron)

References<37irpl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <37kfob$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ARRL ROANOKE DIV. ELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE

In <37kfob$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dr. Michael Mancini) writes:
>Perhaps we would. The League looks out for the interests of the League.
>Period. When I got into this game back in the mid-Seventies, ARRL membership
>(with QST) was $7.50 a year. Now (last I heard) it is $30.00.

In the mid-Seventies pay phone calls in Louisiana were 5 cents,  now they're
25 cents.  The ARRL is NOT responsible for inflation.  The ARRL's costs rise
along with everyone else's.

>The Leagues stands on critical issues such as the Codeless Technician have
>been a scam. They pushed for "all Amateur privileges 222 MHz and above"
>and in reality we wound up with "all Amateur Privileges 30 MHz and above."
>Who's deceived who here? Originally, the proposal would have populated
>some of our lesser-used bands in the VHF, UHF, and microwave spectrum,
>which would have appealed to the individuals to which this new class of
>license was initially created for (technical, academic types who are
>pushing the state-of-the-art in digital, spread-spectrum, and computer-
>enhanced wireless communications). Now, what we have is primarily
>CB-types, who have flocked to Two Meters in droves, exactly according
>to my predictions. The only difference is now, instead of 40 channels
>to play with, they have HUNDREDS.

The ARRL proposed to the FCC a new license with 222 MHz and above
privileges,  based on membership interest (perceived or not).  The FCC
accepts public comments and eventually modifies the proposal or replaces
it with one supplied by the QCWA.  How has the ARRL deceived us in this
matter?  It would seem to me that they proposed what you think is a good
idea but the QCWA and FCC thought otherwise.

>The League has welcomed these "new" amateurs with open arms. And why not?
>At $30 a head, they represent some serious cash flow. Even though the
>League is a non-profit organization, most of the officers at Newington
>still draw handsome salaries.

The League had better welcome new Amateurs with open arms!  You're
saying that they should be given the cold shoulder?  Make no sense at all!
Considering the cost of living in CT no HQ staffers are getting rich.  Have you
seen the job postings?  Barely over $20,000 a year and that's living in one of
the most expensive areas of the country!

>The days of Hiram Percy Maxim are long gone.

That's true.  For better or worse.

73,

Robert KA5WSS
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Oct 1994 16:55:10 GMT
From: [e-mail]

References<37g3no$[e-mail]> <37h27k$[e-mail]>, <37l42q$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW QSO Content

In article <37l42q$[e-mail]>,
gregory brown <[e-mail]> wrote:

>...I was laughing at your analogy.

You didn't seem to understand the analogy. The analogy was...

being coerced to endure something of no value on the way to acquiring
something of value. CW is of no value to approximately half the hams
on HF who never use it after they pass their general/advanced tests.
It just sits there, like an unused TSR, accomplishing no useful purpose.
--
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC   (All my own personal fuzzy logic, not Intel's)

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

Date: 15 Oct 1994 01:39:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]

References<37g3no$[e-mail]> <37h27k$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW QSO Content

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>How did you interpret that, Cec? That's *not* what Greg said.

Hi Jeff, I _asked a question_ to see if that was what he really meant.

>So you are agreeing that 38% (more like 50%) is not an insignificant
>figure?

Now that you ask... I think the 50% of HF hams that do not use CW is
rather a significant figure.

>If 38% of all hams (better: about 50% of HF comms) use CW then that
>seems like a good reason to require a knowledge of CW;

Then are you saying that the 50% of HF hams who use CW are more important
than the 50% who don't use CW? Why should half the HF ham population be
hazed so the other half can feel good?
--
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC   (All my own personal fuzzy logic, not Intel's)

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #491
******************************