Hi all,
I usually stay away from these kinds of topics. I had trouble putting
out the
fire last time....
I own a repeater here in Southern Maryland, and the club that I belong
to holds
Ham classes on a regular basis. As a result there are a lot of new Hams
on my
repeater. I get phone calls all of the time from long time hams
complaining about
them. Its the usual story: "Marty, you wouldn't believe what so and so
said on the
repeater." Then they tell me the story and they always end it by saying
"don't these
new hams know anything?" My response is always "Did you know anything 10
years
ago when you first started? Did you key up and set him straight?" I have
a LOT of
trouble getting the older hams to explain things to the new guys. Every
ham has to
have an Elmer of some sort. I did, and most of you did too.
So before you get irritated and dismiss one of these new hams as an
idiot, stop and
think; Would it hurt if I took a couple of hours of my time and helped
him out????
If we want properly trained hams operating on our bands WE HAVE TO DO
THE
TRAINING!!!!!
Ok, I'm back off of my soapbox now.... Have a nice day.
73, Martin N3HRT
Edward W. Sleight wrote:
>
> > You are exactly correct in assuming the technical knowledge of
> > hams has sunk to a all time low. But the problem is not fixed by trying >
> > to dumb down the articles to match the dummies, how about bringing the >
> > education up to the level it was. If you cannot read, you sure cannot
> > understand the content. Internet has provided a window
> > into the intelligence of many out there, too many have the ability to
> > move thier fingers before moving the gray matter in the head. Should
> > we increase the difficulty of the amateur test to bring back the
> > technically inclined, or just go for numbers that have no understanding
> > of how or why it works?
> > I vote for the April Fools articles of the past, some were really
> > great. One thing, the title says it all "april fools", another is, >
> > someone doesnt have to tell me which month it is.
> > No flames intended and will accept none in return, I wear asbestos
> > underwear, so wont live long anyway. 73 Merv K9FD
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Merv does bring up one interesting point, that it would be well to
> require more education, but that, in contrast to today's "just give it
> to them" is completely unrealistic. I do not intend to demean anyone,
> but I've seen posts here by 1x2 call holders that a Novice should have
> been able to answer.
>
> When I used to build my own, I could trouble shoot it. But I, except
> for the Titan, am just not current enough, have the correct equipment,
> or capacity of going into a modern radio except for some obviously minor
> problems. Hell's bells, I have trouble finding the right circuit board
> in some cases. So, over 43 years, I've become in a sense an "appliance
> operator" as it pertains to the transceiver. From that point on, I can
> hold my own, but that article even had me going for a couple of
> paragraphs.
>
> At the very least, if ARRL wishes to continue to publish these April
> Fool
> articles, let them put a clear and in LARGE type disclaimer at the end.
>
> And the statement inferring our present day operators are "dummies" is
> an insult, especially so in the sense of the original poster, who has
> contributed many thoughtful insights to this reflector.
>
> 73
>
> Ed
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|