Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Basis And Purpose  (Read 6708 times)
KU5Q
Member

Posts: 89


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2010, 04:41:44 PM »

Len, K6LHA, please don't let on the air setbacks discourage you from CW. I have had many, many of those while learning the ropes of CW. I just climb back on the horse, so to speak. The meeting place for slower CW ops is 7.100 to 7.150 MHz. If you find no activity up there call CQ at the speed you're comfortable with around 7.040 MHz and someone will come back at your speed.

I'd be more than happy to set up a sked with you on 40 meters. Just email me or post a time and date here. 73.

Lenny, sounds like he's "baiting you".

Tell him like the title of one of his threads "yo momma ham radio style".
Logged
KU5Q
Member

Posts: 89


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2010, 06:55:17 PM »

"The OOK CW term you favor never caught on."

It is technically correct, though awkward.

73,
Chuck  NI0C


Why? Just because you say so? "On-Off Keying", "Amplitude Shift Keying".....

Are you another of the self appointed "ham radio jargon police"?

What did you design for 15 years in the "aerospace industry"?

Is it really true that "those that can do, and those that can't teach?"
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2010, 08:05:43 PM »

Len, K6LHA, please don't let on the air setbacks discourage you from CW. I have had many, many of those while learning the ropes of CW. I just climb back on the horse, so to speak. The meeting place for slower CW ops is 7.100 to 7.150 MHz. If you find no activity up there call CQ at the speed you're comfortable with around 7.040 MHz and someone will come back at your speed.

I'd be more than happy to set up a sked with you on 40 meters. Just email me or post a time and date here. 73.

Quote
Lenny, sounds like he's "baiting you".

Of course he is.  Anyone with a surname like "Cutbait" would...    Grin

Quote
Tell him like the title of one of his threads "yo momma ham radio style".

He's forgotten that.  Too much radiotelegraphy beeping will do that to a ham.

No, the bigger problem is that too many of these OT zombies think that "advancing the state of the art" is improving their on-off keying CW "skill."
Sort of like the Basis and Purpose was the maintenance of ancient radio arts no longer needed in the larger world of all radio.

73, Len K6LHA
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2010, 06:08:30 PM »

Len, K6LHA:

After wading through all those words of yours, with so few actual facts (time, date, frequency, callsigns,) I think I know what happened. Your angry response is the main clue.

I think your attitude towards Morse Code was pretty clear to all who were on that conference call. And I think somebody on the conference call decided to pull your leg a little. That third person showed up on the frequency you'd chosen and teased you a bit.

Seeing how you behave towards others online, that third person may have thought you'd be amused. But since the joke was on *you*, you didn't see the humor. Particularly since it was somebody local to you.

So you repackaged the story a little to make it look like you were the victim.

I could be all wrong about this, of course. But you left out so many details it's hard to tell.

Why not give us all the details of what happened? Time, date, frequency, callsigns used, etc.?

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2010, 08:23:12 PM »

Len, K6LHA:

After wading through all those words of yours, with so few actual facts (time, date, frequency, callsigns,) I think I know what happened. Your angry response is the main clue.

"Angry?"  Not so.  Surprised, perhaps.  BTW, the conference call wasn't about amateur radio at all.   Grin

Quote
I think your attitude towards Morse Code was pretty clear to all who were on that conference call.

Okay, Sherlock, was WAS the conference call about?   Grin  You presume to "know everything" about anyone so you  should have quoted what it was, right?     Grin    Wow, do people actually talk about something else besides amateur radio on conference calls?  Yes, Sherlock, they DO!    Cheesy

Quote
Seeing how you behave towards others online, that third person may have thought you'd be amused. But since the joke was on *you*, you didn't see the humor. Particularly since it was somebody local to you.

Oh, you poor baby!  You have blathered about "what I've done" for over 12 years on these "discussion" venues for hams and you rarely get a thing right.

Quote
I could be all wrong about this, of course. But you left out so many details it's hard to tell.

You are wrong about so many things...and this is one of them.  Grin

Quote
Why not give us all the details of what happened? Time, date, frequency, callsigns used, etc.?

WTF are you acting like some Inspector from New Scotland Yard?  Have you finally read a book NOT published by the ARRL?!?

No, you just get in contact with the FCC's Enforcement Bureau and complain to them, demand I be stripped of all amateur radio powers, taken out and shot?  You act that way to everyone who doesn't love, honor, and obey on-off keying telegraphy and have for over a dozen years.  It is time to STOP being such a little person, grow up, and find out that not everyone loves the things that you do.

Now, do you have something cogent to say about the Basis and Purpose of 97.1 in Title 47 C.F.R. or do you want to ignite a flame war about personalities that don't think like you do?  Since you've been shot down so many times on your flame war attempts, I think you are going to light another wet match and try for another.

Say, why don't you branch out your Tea Party affiliation and run for an official position at the ARRL?  You must have accrued lots of retirement points from Consolidated Railways Corporation of Philadelphia, PA, to afford leaving them for that nice suburb of Hartford, CT.

K6LHA

Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2010, 07:06:44 AM »

Len, K6LHA:

After wading through all those words of yours, with so few actual facts (time, date, frequency, callsigns,) I think I know what happened. Your angry response is the main clue.

"Angry?"  Not so.  Surprised, perhaps.  BTW, the conference call wasn't about amateur radio at all.   Grin

Your response to me was certainly one of anger.

And if the conference call "wasn't about amateur radio at all", why did you mention it?

Len, K6LHA:
I think your attitude towards Morse Code was pretty clear to all who were on that conference call.

I could be all wrong about this, of course. But you left out so many details it's hard to tell.

You are wrong about so many things...and this is one of them.  Grin


Then why not give us all the details of what happened? Time, date, frequency, callsigns used, etc.?

WTF are you acting like some Inspector from New Scotland Yard?  Have you finally read a book NOT published by the ARRL?!?

No, you just get in contact with the FCC's Enforcement Bureau and complain to them, demand I be stripped of all amateur radio powers, taken out and shot?


I didn't accuse you of any violations of FCC rules, Len. I'm just curious about the details of the alleged one-and-a-half QSOs. Why not tell the whole story? Why leave out relevant details such as date, time, frequency, callsigns used, etc.? You're not stingy with words, why not use some to tell us the facts?

Do you have a guilty conscience?

You act that way to everyone who doesn't love, honor, and obey on-off keying telegraphy and have for over a dozen years.

Give us links to some examples, Len. If I act that way to everyone, as you claim, it should be easy for you to give direct links to postings of mine where I did so.

But I suspect you can't do that.

It is time to STOP being such a little person, grow up, and find out that not everyone loves the things that you do.

Len, I'm hardly a "little person".

And if "growing up" means acting the way you do online, I'll do the Peter Pan thing.

Now, do you have something cogent to say about the Basis and Purpose of 97.1 in Title 47 C.F.R. or do you want to ignite a flame war about personalities that don't think like you do?  Since you've been shot down so many times on your flame war attempts, I think you are going to light another wet match and try for another.

Len, you changed the subject far from "Basis and Purpose" when you mentioned your alleged one-and-a-half QSOs and the conference call and all that. I just asked some questions about the details. No "flames", just simple and direct questions which you answer with personal attacks.

Why is it OK for you to go off on a tangent from the original subject, but others must not? Why is it OK for you to question others, but not OK for others to question you?
 
In case you hadn't noticed, until a few days ago I hadn't responded to any of your postings for more than a year.

73 de Jim, N2EY

« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 07:32:38 AM by James Miccolis » Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 10:38:08 PM »

Len, K6LHA:
I think your attitude towards Morse Code was pretty clear to all who were on that conference call.
OH?!?  You are trying to top my phone line now?!?  You must have a recording of that.  You should transcribe it and post it here!    Grin
Quote
I didn't accuse you of any violations of FCC rules, Len.

NO? Of course you did...in an oblique confrontational way...such as precise logbook details of what you call an "alleged" QSO.  :-)

WHY DO YOU HAVE AN "ALLEGED" NEED TO KNOW?  :-)

That's rhetorical, I understand (by your repeated use of the technique for over a dozen years) you are trying to lay a verbal trap on which to build your defamatory straw man in successive posts.

The "proof" of your technique can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.policy/topics

The number of posts is remarkable, going from October of 1997 to June of 2010, a total of 12,189 messages in 41 groups on Google USENET newsgropus.  That span overlaps NPRM 98-143 ('Restructuring'), through the 18 Petitions for Reconsideration of 'Restructuring,' NPRM 05-235 (elimination of all code testing), and past Memorandum Report and Order 06-178 that finalized the elimination of code testing. That's a rather long 13 years where all the OT zombies vainly tried to dismiss new ideas, new regulations, new anything (except what they had in their own stations).

Anybody who wants to read about 30K messages on USENET archived on Google, is welcome to do so.  But, the thing was, arguments on USENET went their turn, lots of words were exchanged, time did not stand still.  Nobody can "win" one side or the other AGAIN by repetition of OLD arguments.  In AMATEUR REGULATORY LAW 'Restructuring' happened and total elimination of morse code testing happened...Petitions for Reconsideration didn't make it.  No matter how many times the OT zombies tried to ressurect it, code testing remained dead.  Bye, bye, beep-beep.

In retrospect, since you are obviously obsessed by telegraphy, I can understand your concern. You were - in summary - terribly AFRAID of losing your rank, status, privilege and TITLE of OT since getting your first amateur radio license as a new, pubescent teen-ager.  The fear was on many minds and stood out on comments to the FCC on 20 different proposals by those who wanted to keep their ego-centric rank, status, privileges they thought they "deserved."  What else do you have?

Unfortunately, rec.radio.amateur.policy was beginning to turn into absolute dreck by around 2005 with all the phony-handled anonymous trashmouths.  Eventually rec.radio.amateur administration had to create rec.radio.amateur.moderated...so that nice, "polite" (as the ARRL would want it) discourse by so-called "civil" members.  By 2010 it had turned into copies of information carried on rec.radio.amateur.info or just a few posts by "regulars" (most of them being moderators, apparently trying to keep the newsgroup "alive."  IMHO all that the creation of "moderated" did was fan the flames of enmity of OT zombies against the Majority who didn't care for 40-years-ago postings.

Jimmie, YOU are a moderator on rec.radio.amateur.moderated.  It's interesting that moderators there can just "lose" non-moderators' posts before it appears in public...WITHOUT ONE SINGLE EXPLANATION IN E-MAIL as to their disappearance.  That's good for dictator types.  Shoots the hell out of "inherent good will" of USA radio amateurs.

Quote
I'm just curious about the details of the alleged one-and-a-half QSOs. Why not tell the whole story? Why leave out relevant details such as date, time, frequency, callsigns used, etc.?

You aren't "curious."  You are just into your technique of "civilly" fanning a FLAME WAR.  Nobody else really cares and its really none of your business.  It is MISDIRECTION into another topic and you have shown you are very good at that in the last 13 years.  It is still a FLAME WAR ignition.

Quote
You're not stingy with words, why not use some to tell us the facts?

WHY?!?  You've told us so LITTLE of yours.  For example, where you work, which happens to be Consolidated Railways Corporation allegedly doing "switching circuit design in the transportation industry" as you said in one Reply to Comments on an NPRM.  You didn't realize that Patent documents always list who the inventors are and who the assignment of the patent rights go to (Conrail in this case, your only patent grant).  That patent had many co-inventors listed.  I only have one USA patent too, as a sole inventor, assigned to RCA Corporation (subsequently bought by General Electric) back in 1974.  Mine was on RADIO, specifically a pulse receiver, and AGC on specific pulses.  It wasn't on railway switching systems since those are relatively slow speed and can be done by wired interconnections.  My patent number is 3,848,191 (United States).  I've even listed my civilian employers by name and years, which all turn out to be involved with radio.  [amazing but true!]

You've told us hardly anything of yourself, in fact NOTHING but your teen-age love affair with amateur radio, how you went downtown all by yourself as a young teener for your first FCC test.  You don't mention family, spouse or significant other, not mentioned any children, your only radio set visible to others was built in the early 1970s using all vacuum tubes but not one single picture of the Elecraft K2 you've mentioned way more than once, you let slip that you have a brother with an amateur radio license (or did have one), but no given name mentioned.  Are you on facebook?  I am.  :-)

Quote
Do you have a guilty conscience?

No.  I've done what I said.  I've described what I bought in 2007 after I was granted my first amateur radio license.  I've gotten chewed-out by OT zombies like yourself for doing so.  Why not?  I had the money, I had the ability, I could buy from AES in Las Vegas and NOT pay California sales tax OR shipping charges.  All legal, but some jealous hobbyists wanted me to spend years "upgrading" and "learning" stuff that I already knew - and had built - before they were BORN.   Grin

My professional RADIO experience began on March 13, 1952, US Army Signal Corps, no license needed, just operate and maintain at least 36 high-power HF transmitters going across the Pacific, the Japan Sea, the waters south to Okinawa and Phillippines, operating 24/7.  Absolutely NOTHING amateurish about that duty.  There was a WAR on in Korea, over 36K US military had already died there and a few of them were from my own Signal Battalion.  But, I VOLUNTEERED my service and was proud of it.  That's something you cannot ever say in your mortal life...without lying.

I'm not at all "guilty" about never "seriously" studying morse code telegraphy.  I never liked it, I still don't.  I'm not at all "guilty" about never getting an amateur radio license when I was a teen ager.  The only license I wanted back then was a DRIVER license...which I got and used.  I still have a valid drivers license and I also got a Commercial radio license (and used that) and I also got an amateur radio license (without any morse test) at the age of 74.

Quote
Len, you changed the subject far from "Basis and Purpose" when you mentioned your alleged one-and-a-half QSOs and the conference call and all that. I just asked some questions about the details. No "flames", just simple and direct questions which you answer with personal attacks.

New HOW did I to that?  The 5 definitions of "Basis and Purpose" do not require any licensee to maintain a living museum of ancient radio skills when they are granted AMATEUR licenses.  Neither are they required by law to USE radiotelegraphy over and above any other mode.  All allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use.  I may argue about the "inherent good will" of USA radio amateurs but there is nothing in USA radio regulations saying that all licensees MUST work foreign stations.  There is nothing at all in Regulations saying that licensees MUST enter "radiosport" contests.  There is nothing at all in Regulations saying that licensees MUST collect QSL cards or collect "certificates" of any kind for contacting enough amateurs in other states or countries or special event stations.  I'm just following the LAW.  I also know how to CHANGE the LAW.  In 1998 I started to get active again in doing such CHANGING.  Took a while but those CHANGES happened.  Now why can't you be a good sport about it and not get all upset about your beloved telegraphy test terminating in the USA?

Quote
Why is it OK for you to go off on a tangent from the original subject, but others must not? Why is it OK for you to question others, but not OK for others to question you?

Tsk, tsk, why is it "OK" for you to INTERROGATE others, yet others must accept YOUR interrogations?

Tsk-cubed, Jimmie, I was trying to bring this non-discussion BACK to "Basis and Purpose."  Noooo...you want a FLAME FEST!  Bad boy, bad boy...whatcha gonna do when they come fo' you?

Quote

In case you hadn't noticed, until a few days ago I hadn't responded to any of your postings for more than a year.

Who cares?  :-)  Jimmie, the "head in the sand" trick just doesn't work.  It only fools you.  YOU remain vulnerable.  You can't stand up-close and personal discussion so you dismiss it and lock yourself out.  You LOSE.

Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 411


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2010, 06:26:25 AM »

Len, you changed the subject far from "Basis and Purpose" when you mentioned your alleged one-and-a-half QSOs and the conference call and all that. I just asked some questions about the details. No "flames", just simple and direct questions which you answer with personal attacks.

Why is it OK for you to go off on a tangent from the original subject, but others must not? Why is it OK for you to question others, but not OK for others to question you?

For exactly the same reason that YOU repeatedly do all of this...in spades...if it suits your own purposes. 

For example Jim, in other threads and other forums, I've continually asked you to "simply and directly" explain...in detail... what the fundamental OPERATIONAL differences are between the on-air privileges granted to a General Class licensee and those of an Extra Class licensee in our Service in the United States.

So far, those multiple requests over a period of nearly a year have all been met with repeated obfuscation, changed subjects, frantic back-peddling or...failing that...stony silence.

Indeed, what overriding operational regulatory "basis and purpose" is served by requiring applicants for a full featured (i.e. "Extra Class") license in our Service to know the complete contents of a 600 page license manual in order to successfully pass yet ANOTHER (this time 50-question) exam just so they can safely and courteously operate in the last few KHz of our HF bands or to apply for a so-called "exclusive" call sign? 

That is, what is so fundamentally and operationally different about the skills and knowledge required to safely operate my amateur station at 14.024 MHz rather than at 14.026 Mhz that I need to take yet another, far more "advanced" radio exam predominantly comprised of horrifically obscure questions that have little or nothing to do with the specific operational privileges granted as a result of my successfully passing it?

Could it be that to truthfully answer such "simple and direct" questions completely undermines your ENTIRE arguement that an arcane (and I contend, now patently illegal) "achievement based" licensing system (including psycho-motor skill tests for Morse) just to obtain a full-featured license to operate in our so-called "amateur" radio service somehow still serves a useful regulatory purpose in the 21st Century? 

So, once again, Jim, I'll await your sage answer to my "simple and direct" questions.

But, on the other hand, I'm not holding my breath...


Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Logged
N3DF
Member

Posts: 252




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2010, 10:51:01 AM »

Keith, you seem pretty knowledgeable.  I'll bet you could study and pass the Amateur Extra examination in a week, maybe less.
Logged

Neil N3DF
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2010, 11:25:15 AM »

Keith, you seem pretty knowledgeable.  I'll bet you could study and pass the Amateur Extra examination in a week, maybe less.

I'll bet he already did some time ago.  Are you trying to pick a fight in here?   Grin

73, Len K6LHA
Logged
KD6EVH
Member

Posts: 33




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2010, 12:03:10 PM »

Keith, you seem pretty knowledgeable.  I'll bet you could study and pass the Amateur Extra examination in a week, maybe less.

A quick search would show that he already has. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=340970
Logged

aka. AF7JA
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2010, 06:41:12 PM »

N2EY: "I didn't accuse you of any violations of FCC rules, Len."

K6LHA: "NO? Of course you did...in an oblique confrontational way...such as precise logbook details of what you call an "alleged" QSO.  :-)"

How is that an accusation of FCC rules violations? What rules were you accused of violating?

K6LHA: "WHY DO YOU HAVE AN "ALLEGED" NEED TO KNOW?  :-)"

I'm just curious. You claim someone else intentionally interfered with you but give no details of time, date, frequency, callsigns, etc. That would make anyone with sense doubt that it actually happened.

K6LHA: "That's rhetorical, I understand (by your repeated use of the technique for over a dozen years) you are trying to lay a verbal trap on which to build your defamatory straw man in successive posts.

The "proof" of your technique can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.policy/topics"

If I really did what you claim, it would be easy to give direct links to examples of it. But you won't do that because it's not a valid claim. Instead, you misdirect.

K6LHA: "You were - in summary - terribly AFRAID of losing your rank, status, privilege and TITLE of OT"

How would I lose anything like that if the rules changed?

I've been a licensed radio amateur since 1967 and an Extra since 1970. Changing the rules won't change that history.

I've been a ham since a time when all licensed US hams had passed Morse Code tests, "secret" written tests, and when most amateur radio tests were administered by FCC examiners. In those days, passing such tests was no big deal because every US ham, or most of them, had done it.

IOW, lowering the requirements turned what was common into something special.

K6LHA: "Unfortunately, rec.radio.amateur.policy was beginning to turn into absolute dreck by around 2005 with all the phony-handled anonymous trashmouths."

Most of which wanted the rules to change the same way you did, Len. A lot of those who turned it into a mess were just following your lead.

N2EY: "I'm just curious about the details of the alleged one-and-a-half QSOs. Why not tell the whole story? Why leave out relevant details such as date, time, frequency, callsigns used, etc.?"

K6LHA: "You aren't "curious.""

Yes, I am. Why not just give the relevant facts? Time, date, frequency, callsigns? What have you got to lose?

K6LHA: "You are just into your technique of "civilly" fanning a FLAME WAR."

All I'm doing is asking simple questions. Not calling anybody names. What's wrong with that?

K6LHA: "Nobody else really cares and its really none of your business."

If it's not my business, why did you mention it here?

N2EY: "You're not stingy with words, why not use some to tell us the facts?"

K6LHA: "WHY?!?"

Because the requested facts are relevant to the discussion. You claim another person caused intentional interference but give no details as to time, date, frequency, callsigns, etc.

K6LHA: "You've told us so LITTLE of yours. For example, where you work"

How is any of that relevant to the discussion?

K6LHA: "You didn't realize that Patent documents always list who the inventors are"

Sure I did. Anybody can look up US patent 5,358,202. But it has nothing to do with this discussion.

K6LHA: "You've told us hardly anything of yourself, in fact NOTHING but your teen-age love affair with amateur radio, how you went downtown all by yourself as a young teener for your first FCC test.  You don't mention family, spouse or significant other, not mentioned any children, your only radio set visible to others was built in the early 1970s using all vacuum tubes but not one single picture of the Elecraft K2 you've mentioned way more than once, you let slip that you have a brother with an amateur radio license (or did have one), but no given name mentioned."

You've got a whole bunch of mistakes in there, Len. You don't have even the basic facts about me right. For example, my first FCC amateur radio license tests were in 1967 at K3NYT's house. The Southgate Type 7, visible in my shack photo on qrz.com, was built in the 1990s, not the 1970s. There are several amateurs in the FCC database with the same last name as me.

And it's interesting that you don't mention my BSEE (from Penn) and MSEE (from Drexel) degrees. You've claimed to be an engineer, Len - what college or university granted your degrees? And in what subject?

N2EY: "Do you have a guilty conscience?"

K6LHA: "No.  I've done what I said."

You've not said much about what you've done in amateur radio. With you, it's always about other kinds of radio - decades ago.

K6LHA: "I'm not at all "guilty" about never "seriously" studying morse code telegraphy.  I never liked it, I still don't."

Then why did you try to have a QSO with it?

K6LHA: "I'm not at all "guilty" about never getting an amateur radio license when I was a teen ager.  The only license I wanted back then was a DRIVER license...which I got and used.  I still have a valid drivers license and I also got a Commercial radio license (and used that) and I also got an amateur radio license (without any morse test) at the age of 74."

You leave out some important facts in that little history. Such as the thousands of posts you made to various amateur radio forums before you got a license in 2007 - a few days after the code test was completely removed.

Here are links to some classics of yours:

Requesting a minimum age of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license (last page of over a dozen pages of Reply Comments):

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3

Accusing some ARRL VEs of fraud:

http://tinyurl.com/2k5mb5

Telling others to shut up, simply for disagreeing:

http://tinyurl.com/3ygllb

Making fun of the military service of a Coast Guard Radioman:

http://tinyurl.com/27fbwe

but then admitting that your description of an artillery barrage was not based on your own experience:

http://tinyurl.com/2tpq2l

You also leave out how, in January of 2000, you said you were "going for Extra out of the box". Only took you seven years plus...

http://tinyurl.com/c5qyv

There's lots more.

Now, if I've behaved so badly in the past, it should be simple for you to come up with links to actual postings where I've done so. But you can't.

N2EY: "In case you hadn't noticed, until a few days ago I hadn't responded to any of your postings for more than a year."

K6LHA: "Who cares?  :-)"

You sure do.

K6LHA: "Jimmie, the "head in the sand" trick just doesn't work.  It only fools you.  YOU remain vulnerable."

Vulnerable to what?

K6LHA: "You can't stand up-close and personal discussion so you dismiss it and lock yourself out.  You LOSE."

What do I lose besides time?

Len, your idea of "up close and personal discussion" is based on two fallacies:

1) Your ad hominem attacks on others (attacking the person rather than actually discussing the issues)

2) Your appeal to authority (claiming to be correct because of who you are rather than the validity of your statements)

Both fallacies don't fool anybody with common sense.

You also try to get the other person angry by calling them names and belittling what they've accomplished. Is that what a PROFESSIONAL does?

I think not.

Be seeing you!

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
KD6EVH
Member

Posts: 33




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2010, 09:23:23 PM »


I'm just curious. You claim someone else intentionally interfered with you but give no details of time, date, frequency, callsigns, etc. That would make anyone with sense doubt that it actually happened.

73 de Jim, N2EY

This is obviously an issue between the two of you; but, in his defense, I do not remember of the particulars of when I have been interfered with, or just annoyed, by other operators. The FCC does not require the keeping of a log book, and I do not keep one. I doubt I am alone in this.

None of this changes the fact that there is a lot of annoying behavior. As I have said on another thread, pink slip contests are annoying; but, in and of themselves are not illegal. I will admit that it has been close to 20 years since I have heard of one going on. The last one I heard of occurred in a club I was a member of, it annoyed me so much I left the club. So, that is the first level of annoying behavior. Annoying, stupid, but legal; however, it really did not impact or interfere with me.

The next level of annoying is the annoying, stupid, but legal; that does, in some minor way, impact or interfere with me. An example was in Portland, OR where I overheard a conversation on a local repeater that was discussion a subject that I was familiar with (no, I do not remember the topic) and I attempted to politely introduce myself. Of course, my call sign has a "6" in it. The response was someone making some generic "californicators" comment and the repeater went dead.
I switched to the input to see what had happened and there was an active conversation. It had become a mutual, "we hate Californians," conversation so I stayed out of it and left my radio off for the rest of the week I was there working. A repeater is private property and they are free to turn it off whenever,and for whatever reason, the owners want; however, it is annoying. This type of greeting is pretty common in Oregon; however, usually it is just the silent treatment, no actually shutting off the repeater, that is why this one stood out.
Again, no log to record this. Even if I had one I would not share it; for all I know that repeater may be gone, or frequented by less annoying people at this point in time. The incident I mention happened in the 90s'

The next on the spectrum of annoying is the annoying, stupid, and, arguably, illegal (I saw it as illegal, others disagreed; but, all said and done, it did not impact me). My job has me driving over the Siskiyou summit on Interstate 5 between CA and OR every morning.
The road was well known for ice, snow, and assorted weather related ugliness. As such, I had been asked, by several local hams, to give a road report as I went over so they could decide how soon early to leave if they were making the same trip. Yes, this amounted to a one way transmission and if anyone had been running a pinkslip contest they could have gotten me for those road reports.
One morning I reported the, rather common, heavy fog on the top of the hill. I then got a response that claimed I was in error and was formed, in near its entirety, of language that did not need to be used on the air; or, in any other polite conversation.
Oddly enough the response came over my CB. I looked at my microphone to see that I had used the correct one, I had. This indicated that someone was listening on 2M and knew that their words were so inappropriate that they had used the CB service for their response.
I almost asked the person for their call-sign. However, I quickly realized that such a request wold involve me in a cross-service conversation. As such, no call-sign to give you on that one either (however, I have pretty good idea who it was; and yes, it was a ham). So, this is the next level on the spectrum of annoying, the annoying, stupid, and, arguably, illegal; however, it did not directly impact me

The final step in the spectrum of annoying is the definitely illegal act that does impact me. I have mentioned this to you before. It was a classic case of old-timers v. younger hams. The old timers viewed the band as their playground and did not want to see any games they did not approve of being played. Further, they were willing to break the law to make their point.
My friends and I wanted to communicate with each other while playing an early coordinated activity computer game (MechWarrior, a giant robot style armored combat game). We tried using amateur radio for coordination (yes, were were operating simplex; even we knew that this type of chatter would be out of place on a repeater) and were quickly admonished by the local amateur community for doing so (where we were there was no shortage of empty 2m simplex space).
After checking the regs we concluded that we were not violating any rules and continued playing our game. then the local hams began jamming us This was done by the simple method of generating audio feedback on any frequency that we switched to for our game; no, it wasn’t a problem with our equipment, it was intentional.
Ultimately the local hams were successful. We stopped using our radios for our game; of course, at this point not a one of us has a radio in their homes (Ok, I have a couple in boxes, I don’t think that counts).
So, at this point the old timers can claim total success, they got those no-coders (the phrase was frequently used) off the air. Now I can run a scanner on those bands in that area and hear near total silence.
Again, no call signs to report. That does not change what happened.

So, when others report rude and abusive actions by other hams I do not discount them pout of hand just because the offender did not exchange call signs or there is no log book. What I do wonder is why no one in the peer group of the rude operators comes out and reminds the old timers of the need to be polite.

Even if the old time, established, operators feel that the new operators are, “nothing but a bunch of CBers,” it does not relieve them of the need to operate legally. Further, if they feel that they know the right way, they need to be out modeling correct behavior, not chastising but creating such a mass of polite behavior that behaving any other way would be conspicuously inappropriate. Instead, quite bluntly, many seem more interested in chasing newcomers off their turf.

All of this is said with no ill toward any here.

KD6EVH
Logged

aka. AF7JA
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5975




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2010, 11:27:03 AM »

As reported in the ARRL Letter and the Articles section, the FCC turned down W6LBV's proposal to update the Basis and Purpose section (97.1). They didn't even give it an RM number nor comments.

The proposal can be viewed here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020246777

The current B&P date to 1951 and are essentially unchanged since then. Before 1951, the section did not exist.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree in general with the ideas Schlesinger advances in his Petition for Rule Making. However, I don't see that it accomplishes anything of value.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2010, 09:05:15 AM »

I do not remember of the particulars of when I have been interfered with, or just annoyed, by other operators.

Then a simple "I don't remember exactly" would be in order, don't you think?

The FCC does not require the keeping of a log book, and I do not keep one. I doubt I am alone in this.

Of course. But just because something isn't required by the regs doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do it anyway. In cases of alleged intentional interference, having a log that has all the pertinent details can be a big help.

I keep a log of all HF amateur operations. Have done so since I got my license October 14, 1967.

None of this changes the fact that there is a lot of annoying behavior. As I have said on another thread, pink slip contests are annoying; but, in and of themselves are not illegal. I will admit that it has been close to 20 years since I have heard of one going on.

I have found in 43 years of amateur radio operation that the annoying behavior is confined to a relatively small number of hams. Most hams I have encountered on the air at least try to follow the rules and good amateur practice.

I'd never heard of a "pink slip contest" before you mentioned it. Might be a local or regional thing.

Of course, my call sign has a "6" in it. The response was someone making some generic "californicators" comment and the repeater went dead.
I switched to the input to see what had happened and there was an active conversation. It had become a mutual, "we hate Californians," conversation so I stayed out of it and left my radio off for the rest of the week I was there working.

Sounds pretty localized to me. Never heard anything like that in EPA, SNJ, MDC, WNY or many other places I've lived, worked, traveled to and been active on the air.

A repeater is private property and they are free to turn it off whenever,and for whatever reason, the owners want; however, it is annoying. This type of greeting is pretty common in Oregon; however, usually it is just the silent treatment, no actually shutting off the repeater, that is why this one stood out.
Again, no log to record this. Even if I had one I would not share it; for all I know that repeater may be gone, or frequented by less annoying people at this point in time. The incident I mention happened in the 90s'

And it was one incident on one repeater in one location - almost 20 years ago.

The final step in the spectrum of annoying is the definitely illegal act that does impact me. I have mentioned this to you before. It was a classic case of old-timers v. younger hams. The old timers viewed the band as their playground and did not want to see any games they did not approve of being played. Further, they were willing to break the law to make their point.
My friends and I wanted to communicate with each other while playing an early coordinated activity computer game (MechWarrior, a giant robot style armored combat game). We tried using amateur radio for coordination (yes, were were operating simplex; even we knew that this type of chatter would be out of place on a repeater) and were quickly admonished by the local amateur community for doing so (where we were there was no shortage of empty 2m simplex space).
After checking the regs we concluded that we were not violating any rules and continued playing our game. then the local hams began jamming us This was done by the simple method of generating audio feedback on any frequency that we switched to for our game; no, it wasn’t a problem with our equipment, it was intentional.
Ultimately the local hams were successful. We stopped using our radios for our game; of course, at this point not a one of us has a radio in their homes (Ok, I have a couple in boxes, I don’t think that counts).
So, at this point the old timers can claim total success, they got those no-coders (the phrase was frequently used) off the air. Now I can run a scanner on those bands in that area and hear near total silence.
Again, no call signs to report. That does not change what happened.

But if there are no callsigns to report, how do you know who did the jamming? Might have been one or two individuals - and they might not be old timers.

I wonder what it was about the game that bothered some folks so much? Particularly on simplex? It makes no sense.

So, when others report rude and abusive actions by other hams I do not discount them pout of hand just because the offender did not exchange call signs or there is no log book.

I don't discount such reports out of hand either.

But when the incident was relatively recent, yet the important details are left out, it makes one wonder what really happened.

What I do wonder is why no one in the peer group of the rude operators comes out and reminds the old timers of the need to be polite.

They may not know that the incident happened at all. And they may not know who to tell.

This is particularly true on HF, where a signal from a modest station may be quite strong hundreds or thousands of miles away.

For example, suppose someone doesn't like a particular net because the net uses "their" frequency. So the person jams the net with music, rude noises, etc. Without DFing and catching the person in the act, who do we tell to behave politely?

Even if the old time, established, operators feel that the new operators are, “nothing but a bunch of CBers,” it does not relieve them of the need to operate legally. Further, if they feel that they know the right way, they need to be out modeling correct behavior, not chastising but creating such a mass of polite behavior that behaving any other way would be conspicuously inappropriate. Instead, quite bluntly, many seem more interested in chasing newcomers off their turf.

All of this is said with no ill toward any here.

In my experience, most "old-timers" behave in appropriate ways on the air - polite, considerate, skilled, etc. There are a few bad apples, but only a few.

Same for newcomers.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!