BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kevin Kwan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Blind-Hams For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:55:08 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (93 lines)
Keep in mind that those operators you're hearing on 75 aren't out there to
make contacts and meet new people, and maybe establish long lost contacts
with dear friends before. They talk to the same bunch every night and they
make a choice to tune out anyone not in their circle. Perhaps then they
don't care to make a positive example for you and I and others who might be
tuning in for the first time. With that said, how boring? If they consider
it fun to be amongst themselves day after day so be it. I would rather talk
to others from different places where I can learn and have some quality that
mean something.I have a little group I talk to on 2 meters and we always
welcome others. It would be boring if it were only us.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: canadian regulation changes


fair enough Tom.
I suppose the tendancy to defend ones position can cloud the reasonability
of the statements one makes from time to time hi hi.
I try to steer clear of bigatry and prejudice while defending my positions
but i suppose it comes through unintended sometimes.

I think i shall try and close out this particular line by saying that I feel
the good out weighs the bad with these regulation changes, at least in my
perspective.
There are always both unforseen and forseen negative consequences to major
changes like this, but the good that the changes will bring about i think
far out weighs those negative consequences for the most part.

On a side note, i was listening to some gentlemen, if they can be called
that, on 3843 last night and i have rarely heard that kind of language and
ignorance come out of a ham radio in all my years of listening to the
bands...and they seemed to be older seasoned operators too....i simply
couldn't believe how they were carrying on about things.
I suppose that sort of proves the point about the bad operators not just
being the newbies fresh off the cb band...i think though that if those
newbies heard this kind of garbage going on up on 75 meters that they would
soon think it was ok to act like that on the air...especially those not
familiar with supposed ham radio edicate.

Anyway, that aside,i still think that even with those few operators the
amateur bands are still full of good operators and nice folks to talk to no
matter where you go...the best way to avoid those operators you dont like is
to simply change the frequency, they arent abundant enough to have to worry
about not being able to get away from them on any band.
73
Colin, V A6BKX
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: canadian regulation changes


> Colin, while that may be true of Canada and hams having a say in things,
Canada
> is only one of about 26 countries who have made this change.  I'd suggest
that
> you check in to how this change was made in other countries and you will
find
> that in most cases it was without or with only minimal feedback from hams.
I
> did initially say that there were exceptions to every rule.  I have not
> specifically picked on Canadians in any of my posts and do not intend to
but I
> have seen some messages to you directed specifically at Canadians.  I also
> realize that you will benefit from the new changes as it will give you hf
access
> but that does not change the fact that I have made a number of gene3ral
> statements to which you have responded specifically as a Canadian.  What
you
> have said may be true specifically in the Canadian situation it is
unfortunately
> not true in any cases.  Also, so far as it goes, if you really want to get
down
> to brass tacks. statistically speaking the Canadian sampling methodology
of hams
> did not yield a valid population sample.  Whether or not that was
avoidable is a
> different discussion perhaps better taken off list but a simple orthogonal
> rotation of the Canadian population matrix will more than fully
demonstrate that
> fact to you if you canre to take the trouble to do the matrix
construction.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Tom Brennan  KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP
> web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2