Well done Bill,
At least Its detaled and clear TALK.
Exactly what I want to tell them.
Thanks Bill I was affraid not to be able using the good terms as my mother
tongue is Dutch & French as well. But I observe that the problem is based
on exactly the same philosophy all over the world.
My fingers tickle to go even further, but its not the place to do so. Just
one thing to CB problem makers ( Only problem makers ), you should know that
the space left between dictatorship and anarchy is democracy. But in
democracy you have to follow the RULES even if you dont like it ......etc
etc.
Jos on4kj
----- Original Message -----
From: "wl fuqua" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
To: "Steve Cloutier, 978-597-3311" <cloutier@bicnet.net>;
<amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] CB'ers - what *IS* the problem, anyway???
> There is still a difference
>
> Ham:
> Have call signs, identify themselves and do so proudly
> Have standards of operation and rules that must be followed
> Have system of monitoring and reporting problems with behavior or
equipment
> problems (Official Observers)
> Are licensed ( which is a contract that states that they will abide by the
> rules and regulations set by FCC
> Do not have problem with illegal sales of drugs or prostitution on their
bands.
> Do not promote the use of vulgar language
> Those hams that do have technical knowledge help others to improve their
> knowledge and skills
> Provide public service
>
>
> illegal CB operators:
> Disguise their identity
> have no concern to follow any standard of conduct, operations
> Have no way to maintain quality standards in their ranks.
> The bands are full of vulgar speaking operators and illegal solicitations.
> etc etc
>
> Just opposite of ham radio.
>
> Also to quote Mark is a real mistake.
>
> First of all Mark is a fraud.
> "mark" <mark@sandlabs.com>
> is Alex Sandbrand N2NNU (Alex@sandlabs.com)
> and Alex Von Yonkers
> and probably several others as well.
>
> He is also a disgrace to the ham community as well. Just check the FCC
> enforcement logs.
> Someone suggested checking out his two MS and his PhD credentials but he
> will not give you his real name anyway.
>
> Before you get started poring the fuel on the flames you may want to check
> out the person you are quoting.
>
> As far a code goes, you don't have to learn code to operate above 50 MHz
> And if your hearing is sufficient to understand any language you can learn
> code at least at 5 WPM.
> The code exam is even multiple choice. Not so hard the answers are A,B,C,
> D ........Z 0,1,....9 and . / ? , and prosigns.
> I teach code and theory to students and many who come to the class and say
> they can't learn code
> discover that they can.
>
> Building and experimenting is returning mostly in the form of QRP.
> Hopefully the FCC will upgrade the exams to make them more relevant as
far
> an real knowledge goes.
> I am also disappointed in the exam situation. But that can be corrected.
> CB can not.
>
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 09:24 AM 12/6/02 -0500, Steve Cloutier, 978-597-3311 wrote:
> >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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
|