[Amps] CB'ers - what *IS* the problem, anyway???

Bill Fuqua wlfuqu00@uky.edu
Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:41:27 -0500


Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. But, you are talking of a small 
number of hams in the community.
A few bad apples do sour the barrel. However, the  "illegal CB" operators 
are all bad apples.
73
Bill wa4lav



At 12:10 PM 12/6/2002 -0800, Rich wrote:


> >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
>
>I get jammed regularly on 7255kHz by Hams.  Some Hams run tetrode with
>handles amplifiers in contests and have no qualms about signing the FCC
>rules compliance statement on the contest entry form.
>
> >Have system of monitoring and reporting problems with behavior or equipment
> >problems (Official Observers)
>
>I knew an Official Observor (W6TOG) who robbed a friend's ham-shack.
>
> >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.
>
>Baja drug trafficers speak Spanish on the low end of 40m in CA c. sunrise.
>
> >Do not promote the use of vulgar language
>
>But some sure as hell use the F word and the S word.
>
> >
> >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,
>
>Try listening to Field Day.
>
> >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.
> >
>Welcome to Fantasyland boys and girls.
>
> >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.
>
>QRP=Bananas,  QRPP=Bananas with nuts.
>
>
> >Hopefully the FCC will upgrade the exams to  make them more relevant as far
> >an real knowledge goes.
>
>I have run into many Extras who failed my Ohm's Law quiz.
>
> >I am also disappointed in the exam situation. But that can be corrected.
> >CB can not.
> >
> >73
> >Bill wa4lav
> >
>cheers, Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
>
>
>-  Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.