I see this topic come up so many times during the course of a year so I guess that I should turn in my Extra-light license because I'm not as smart or as worthy as those who think they are better than others because they possess the "real" license earned back in the good-old days. I'm convinced that they are the same people who walked to school 20 miles each way uphill in the snow while carrying their little sister. I, on the other hand, had to ride a bus about 10 miles...a piece of cake and I didn't learn fortitude. (Plus my little sister sat beside me)

I've decided to demand that the FCC require me to learn 50wpm code and have a doctorate in Electrical Engineering instead of just an A.A. in Electronic Technology from my Community College. Of course while I'm at it I will demand that they require ALL Advanced and old-time Extras to learn and prove proficiency on each and every mode of transmission including voice whether they have a desire to use those modes or not.. They will have to speak proper English and use proper punctuation in William Shakespeare style while using voice mode. No hillbilly talk like I hear now on the radio. No African-American, French, German, Italian, or other dialects or accents. They must also demonstrate AM, FM, SSB, LSB,USB, DSB, digital, RTTY, spread spectrum and on and on and on. Since they are so smart they will also have to build every piece of equipment that they use including RTTY printers, and make their own batteries with material mined by them too. After all if they buy a battery then they are lazy. Also, since communication had it's roots in early cultures they must show proficiency on smoke signals and beating logs with sticks.

I'm 55 years old and have had to readjust my career to changing times. I worked for 3 companies in 28 years and now 10 companies in the last 4 years within the IT field. It is a different world with much younger people in charge. START ADJUSTING! There is plenty for everyone to enjoy in this hobby and I'm humbled by the learned ones who share their knowledge without desire of receiving platitudes but BORED by those fixated on the code issue especially.

73,
Tom K3TVC/nc

I signed with the /nc because it matters so much to you real Hams to know that you are better. Oh God, I'm not worthy.

hi hi




----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Maser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Phone band expansion


Plus, if he had half a brain, he would have upgraded to an Extra back in the late 60's, early 70's. It's sour grapes. I agree that a pre no-code Extra is more valuable than post no code but he missed the boat. My feeling is that my 20WPM Extra will always be worth more(to me at least) than a no code Extra. I've always felt that no code extras should sign /nc when in the Extra part of the bands.

Bob W6TR
----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Phone band expansion


Because with your 1968 Advanced you cannot go to the Extra Only Frequencies.

Healthfully yours,
                         Don W4BWS
----- Original Message ----- From: "Darrell, WA5VGO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Phone band expansion


>   On that subject, I can't
>>understand why the Advanced hams don't go down and pass the Extra
written
>>exam, especially since the code requirements have been eliminated. >>My,
>>it's so easy to get on radio these days.
>>
>>Bob  W6TR

Why would I want to downgrade from my 1968 advanced to the new extra?

Darrell, WA5VGO


______________________________________________________________
AMRadio mailing list
List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Partner Website: http://www.amfone.net
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
Post: mailto:[email protected]

Reply via email to