ARRL Requests Expanded HF Privileges for Technician Licensees

But a lot of products use all caps on their labels. That is different from posting on an internet site. But you already knew that.

I was at the store today and bought a can of beans. On the label it says "REFRIED BEANS", but I wouldn't type it that way when talking about it on the internet.

"Yes, you need to get you some REFRIED BEANS to go with those chips and cheese. And some chunks of HAM."

 

It's different than posting on internet sites? .....Really?

Have a look at these different labels...









Oh, the horror of it all.... Acronym abuse I tell ya !

What are we all going to do about this great inequality?

 

So the question remains... Are these everyday grammar violations occurring in the food manufacturing industry given the same amount of attention to detail as they are on these ham radio internet forums?

Yeah, that's what I thought....

I suppose you can inaccurately call that highly logical thought process "obtuse" if you like. However, I consider the "internet meme" reply as posted above to be void of any thoughtful reasoning myself though.

Please formulate a response worthy of consideration and reply in the future...

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

73

 

What is common on a can of meat may not be common on an internet forum where people endeavor to communicate in (somewhat) proper English, using full sentences. If a producer of pork wishes to use "all caps" on his label, it is certainly OK for him to do that, as it has been an accepted practice for years, even decades. It is not accepted practice for people to bastardize the written language by introducing new constructs to long held traditional words.

The real question is this: Is HAM a proper way to spell our hobby, using the written word? I would suggest that it is not, it is a recent change implemented by newer hams (and others) that do not understand that "ham" is not an acronym. As such, it is an error that gets propagated through these forums, and makes the author of said posts look somewhat uneducated in the history and traditions of amateur radio.

If it is the desire of people to learn, and correct their errors, then they will do so. But they cannot be forced to change, so many of them will hang onto these bad habits, even when they know better.

 

There seems to be a comprehension disconnect in when "all caps" are used and when they are not. This isn't a discussion about caps used on road signs or bean cans, it is a discussion about internet forums and postings therein. If you are writing normal sentences, then suddenly spell one word in caps, you are either trying to emphasize that word, or presenting it as an acronym, or some other variant that requires the caps. "Ham" isn't such a word, it is just a normal word like any other in a sentence. It is not a proper noun, so it isn't capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence. And it should never be in all caps, unless the writer is trying to place special emphasis on that particular word for some contextual reason.

 

Sorry... I deleted my post for you. I don't need to be posting here anyway.
Thanks,

 

You're alright Lisa,... it must be a slow night in Stafford, Az. !! I'm 71 years olde & been a HAM, Ham, & a ham for 57 years - Now as I grow older,... I recognize the term "ham" as I also diminish in importance !! WTF is the BIG deal ?? - Some folks need to get a hobby/life...

It's alright Lisa,... He's a EXTREE class operator & we're only lowly "generals"...

 

Damn ! I''m sure glad that YOU POINTED that out. I'll sleep MUCH better ToNIGHT. Just LAST evening WHEN I Turned-in, I lay AWAKe wondering if i had made "CAPITALIZATION" mistakes in my QrZ PoStS... I'm GlAD to Know that I'm NOT the only DUMB$#!+ "HAM" (YOU made my day SIR)... NOT

 

This thread has certainly drifted a long way from the original topic hasn't it?

On the current subject of clear written communications on this, or any other website: It is very clear that many folks can't write.

Period.

Then some of them get upset when a request for clarification is made, protesting that we, the audience, should be able to get the intended message despite their inability to write. Sorry, but if your sentences are a mess I will not even try to decipher them. We (the collective) have seen a fair amount of that lately. Funny thing about that is that most of the messed up messages I've looked at lately seem to come from someone asking for technical assistance.

Really? The expectation that someone will read, decipher, and answer your question when it is barely readable amazes me. Fortunately though, one or more of the better folks here will usually step in and at least try to assist the petitioner.

There are a lot of nice folks here...

 

I Have Found 2 Software Packages to DECODE PACTOR, So Still not Sure WHY the Hard time With PACTOR III & IV via ARRL?

http://www.hoka.com/products/code30...ma_6iMnTPyYRRz63PgpTmTULIlfhMcCGTu7k7CImp6MyY

https://www.procitec.de/en/products...niJxw_1PNgA8nLJDmFeINWFg6piJAI_BxeBeE8uIPmees

It's Seems that the issue may not be PACTOR itself, but The Winlink there using?

 

Those are _very_ expensive commercial/industrial monitoring programs. The first has a price list online; I could not find info for the second. To use the first to decode pactor you are in for 8700 euro (7500 euro for the 'extended' package and 1200 euro for the pactor module).

There are multiple issues here:
automatic systems not respecting already frequencies already in use
people not understanding how propagation makes it possible for one location to not hear an ongoing qso
the existing 300 baud limit is not a bandwidth limit (you can use many 300 baud carriers)
cost of monitoring proprietary modes (effective encryption)
adaptive channel equalization optimizing comms between two parties but as a side effect making it harder for a monitoring station to decode the comms
desire to advance the radio art and not having excessive regulation

I personally am against using the baud rate limit as a bludgeon against what I see as real difficulties with some pactor users. At the same time we will need to be clever to craft acceptable regulations that deal with the problems without causing other difficulties or harming other users.

At the very least I believe that every signal should have an easy to decode station ID. IMHO the currently accepted 'station ID transmitted using the transmission mode' falls apart when only a few people can use that mode. For any mode that uses adaptive equalization I would propose that station ID be transmitted using morse CW on a periodic basis. Similarly for any mode that requires expensive mode specific equipment or software (expensive being defined by the community at large) ID should be transmitted in a form that everyone can decode.

You could even extend the concept of 'easy to decode' to the proprietary hardware transmitting ID in a more easily decoded 'submode' (say one that temporarily turns off the channel equalization, and then transmits the station ID at a slower rate with strong forward error correction) and distributing free software to decode the ID transmission.

For any station using a difficult to monitor mode, perhaps there should be a stricter logging requirement, where communications must be preserved for examination by the licensing authority.

Etc. I don't pretend to have answers here. I just want to point out that this is not a simply issue with a simple answer, and am mulling possible pieces of an answer.

73
Jon
AF7TS

 

It's not a Pactor problem at all, it's a Winstink problem using Propitiatory ciphers on Amateur bands.

 

This one is FREE, All you have to do is Poke Around
http://www.kd0cq.com/2013/07/sorcer...QFy3g4rAvJdwLVS-E2bqEyceHoN1uzTwkxWG7xEakJHWo