OK Steve,
Since you asked, the *REAL* difference between CB'ers who are operating
out-of-band or using illegal power is that what they are doing is ILLEGAL!
Hams, by virtue of their license, are allowed to run higher power. It is in
the nature of the LICENSE.
That is the 'nuts and bolts' of the whole thing.
Now donning my asbestos suit, so flame away!
Ron, KA9ALC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Cloutier, 978-597-3311" <cloutier@bicnet.net>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: December 06, 2002 14:24
Subject: [Amps] CB'ers - what *IS* the problem, anyway???
> Hmm..
>
> What *IS* the real difference between a modern "Amateur" operator and a
> CB'er, anyway. Yes, back in the old days (before the dumbing down of the
> amateur radio test) there was a real technical difference between *most*
> (but not all) of the CB'ers and amateurs.
>
> However, I have met many CB'ers who are VERY technical - can design (not
> just assemble) equipment, but did not become hams because of the code
> test. Some people just can't do code.
>
> However, many times - at least on 75 meters, I see VERY little difference
> between many of the so-called amateur radio operators and the CB'ers that
> so many chastise for existing. I have personally administered the General
> class test as a VE, and I will say that virtually ANYONE can pass this
test
> who has better than an 8th grade education.
>
> There is *no* technical distinction between the CB'ers and many modern-day
> amateurs. Most amateurs today are appliance operators. They pass a
simple
> test, buy an expensive piece of equipment, plug it in and get on the
> air. What *is* the difference between this and what a CB'er does - except
> that the CB'er doesn't have to pass any test at all. The difference is
> rather thin, if you ask me.
>
> Just as background, I designed and built virtually every piece of radio
> equipment in my station - including converting an old BC1004 receiver to
> solid-state (basically, a complete rebuild). To *me* this is what Amateur
> radio is all about - being technical, experimenting, building. But I
would
> not ever accuse someone who enjoys a different aspect of the hobby, or is
> here for different reasons as "lesser". Personally, I include the CB'ers
> in this category. Why are they less than us? They just want to
> communicate and have fun, so let them. Plenty of hams do the exact
> thing.... No one of us is "better" than anyone else.
>
> (Sorry about the old-buzzard transmission :-).
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve WA1QIX http://www.netway.com/~stevec/ham
>
>
>
>
>
> At 08:55 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Not sure why being a CBer is such a stigma :) I have seen bad apples in
> >every circle including this one
> >but this does not make the entire segment bad :) Perhaps a CBer with a
> >Chimney trigered this atitude but most of them, and this includes me, are
> >honest to the teeth guys :) Or are we to arogant to alow
> >them to live too ?
> >
> >Mark, "The Butterfly" when on the open road :)... Long Before Microsoft
:)
> >
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Alek Petkovic" <vk6apk@eon.net.au>
> >To: <amps@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:50 PM
> >Subject: [Amps] Not
> >
> >
> > > It is now evident that _ -_-Bear is not a derivation of CBer. I guess
I'm
> > > guilty of doing too many cryptic crosswords. I'm always looking for
hidden
> > > meanings.
> > >
> > > Once again, my apologies to Randall, WB2GCR for any embarrassment I
may
> > > have caused him.
> > >
> > > 73, Alek
> > > ..._ _._ _.... ._ ._ _. _._
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Amps mailing list
> > > Amps@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Amps mailing list
> >Amps@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|