| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 14.10.00 13:01l 186 Lines 7167 Bytes #-8617 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_2000_261B
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 2000/261B
Path: DB0ABH<DB0BOX<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0HAG<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 001014/0755Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:24905 [Den Haag] FBB $:PR_2000_261B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 00 21:32:17 MET
Message-Id: <pr_2000_261B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> Ham
> Radio to be the place for "do it yourself" radio innovation. It's a free
> county is it not. I hate politics but do you see there's money interests
> involved? So I say create first and then change the rules to back up
> your new
> benefit, if needed. Sure move to MURS or Part 15 or whatever if you
> need to.
> Yet, What's happening to Amateur Radio?
>
> A pet peeve of mine is the "Amateur" in Amateur Radio. Just a thought.
> Why
> not call it Scientific Radio instead? Are we not promoting professional
> operator techniques? Professional doesn't mean money per say. It means
> professional. It means practiced. It means wise and it means benefits
> with
> communications. Is there a problem with calling it Scientific Radio? I
> guess
> we'll always be Hams. That is, if we still have a band to use.
>
> It would be nice if "Hams" were thought of as being smart and not smart
> asses. Watch out that you're not a smart *ass*. Sure be technical but
> get
> real. We need to respect all operators regardless of technical
> knowledge. Many spouses both technical and not so technical have joined
> in and all to our benefit. Plus, few debate the need to attract a young
> person (or old) who is just learning.
>
> Further, why not even be known for caring first. Care about people.
> Isn't that the reason for communication in the first place? Let's add
> to our
> ability to care for people, like when we connect them to their loved
> ones in
> an emergency. Let's be known for our scientific innovation AND how it
> benefits all. Let's even be known for pointing out where big business
> seeks
> to control the airwaves and our pocket books. Why not make free wireless
> communications available to the masses. Why not? Who say's we must pay
> a toll? It's completely up to you.
>
> Further I'll even say we need privacy and that includes encryption. Now
> I
> realize this is very controversial. I will tell you why. We need
> innovation
> in our thinking here. The standard government rant goes like this...we
> can't
> give encryption to the public, they say. Then some evil interest would
> communicate about destroying us and we wouldn't be able to listen in.
> Therefore (they say) our freedom is in jeopardy. They say it's a
> national
> security issue. So they control our privacy for the sake of security.
> This
> is in fact, our current situation if you didn't know it. We have no
> communications privacy.
>
> So what's the problem with that? After all, what do you have to hide,
> right?
> WRONG! Have you not heard about the epidemic of identity theft for one
> example? Do you believe everyone and anyone has a right to know
> anything and
> everything about you? I think that's God's job. It is not the
> governments.
>
> We are allowing the government to trade our privacy for security. Well
> isn't
> privacy a freedom we have fought and our forefathers have died for all
> these years.
> Isn't that like giving up the war to all comers, anyway? I believe it
> was
> Ben Franklin who said "If you give up your privacy for security, you
> will
> have NEITHER!". The problem is the men in government seek to *CONTROL*
> those not in government unfairly. Why is it OK for our government to
> have privacy
> and not it's people? If you see the government as your savior, I
> suggest what you don't know *can* hurt you. This has never been as
> important as it is today. Many
> are now realizing all too late, their privacy matters. Don't be too
> late, it
> matters.
>
> So if you're one of the few who truly promote innovation and you are
> kind
> enough to do it with Amateur Radio, please don't give up. Focus on real
> communication benefits for people. Embrace change and do something
> about it.
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:06:03 GMT
From: DOUGLAS STINSON <douglas-stinson@home.com>
Subject: Innovation and Ham Radio
The definitions of "amateur" and "professional" have changed (becomne
distorted?) over the years. Originally an amateur was some one who did
something for the love of it (same root as the French "amour"), while a
professional was someone who did something for money. It was widely
believed that true excellence could only come from a deep love of the
subject, as opposed to "mere" money. Somehow today ther words have the
opposite conotation.
Case in point: virtually all the great scientists of the past -- the
founders of modern scientific thought -- were amateurs. The concept of
paying someone to do science is a recent invention.
So it could be argued that "scientific radio", as an alternative to
"amateur radio", has firm historical roots.
helpfull@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I can't really tell what you're saying for sure. I seems like you have
> put together quite a speech yourself. I'll try to deciper and comment
> below.
>
> In article <RTlF5.108$Av3.115361@news.uswest.net>,
> "Rod" <Rods_Box@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > For some one that seems to dislike popular politics your post
> certainly
> > sounds like a politicians speech.
>
> I dislike the fact politics are part of Ham Radio but they are. I will
> clearly state my intent. I wish to motivate others into action. It is
> my hope that we Hams will stand up for innovation and change the rules
> as necessary.
>
> >Ham radio is like speaking in public, not
> > every one wants to listen to what you wont to say,... Let them turn
> the
> > VFO! (scroll past the post as it applies). Respect them for their
> choice
> > not to listen to you. Respect them enough that if you don't like
> what their
> > saying to take an appropriate action.
>
> Well I agree we can change the channel or the newsgroup even but that
> doesn't excuse evil. It's a balance. Sure turn it off if you just don't
> want to hear it. I'm sure you know that doesn't mean anything goes, on
> the other hand.
>
> >If you wont to offer a differing
> > opinion to debate and not argue. Arguing is just a waste of band
> space and
> > time on any medium because it's not communicating. If you don't like
> what's
> > being said and don't wont to debate the idea then just walk away.
> It's just
> > a plain old fashion case of be the better man for showing respect
> even if
> > they don't deserve it. Lids are everywhere!
> >
>
> Sure if you mean walk away before getting enraged or a childish
> argument I agree. Yet we should have reasonable and good "aguements". I
> agree we should not *always* be contentious.
>
> > Change is inevitable however controllable.
>
> What I'm saying is change is inevitable and that can not be stoped or
> controlled. If you're tring desperately to keep everything the same,
> you'll be disapponted. I am by no means suggestiing that truth is
> realative. Truth does not change.
>
> > If we vote our ?confidence?
> > and not just because your family beliefs in a certain parties
To be continued in digest: pr_2000_261C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
