Message-ID: <006101c08906$639397c0$0301a8c0@steve>
From: "Steve Olney" <ollaneg@zeta.org.au>
To: "RSGB LF Group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: LF: CW allocations...
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:43:14 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

G'day All,
As usual in these debates the proponents are wandering off the topic.   The
original reason for even bothering to respond to any of this was NOT to ban
or get rid of CW.   Those who have read my posts carefully with an open mind
will see that my attitude is quite the contrary.    Show me where there was
any mention of restricting CW privileges.   It was (and still is) the
derision and put-downs directed towards those who exercise their right to
engage in other modes.   To understand the situation the following facts
should be considered and be at the forefront of the thinking process when
offering opinions.

1.    Lack of CW proficiency has been used for a very long time as an
instrument to exclude otherwise competent and valuable Amateur expertise
from the HF Amateur bands.   All Amateurs should have the opportunity to
pursue their hobby on the international bands if they desire subject to
reaching some agreed technical competence.   Only recently has there been a
push to relax this discriminatory restriction.    Lets hope this fades into
history in a few years time.

2.   Non-CW types (as we are termed) have been treated as second-class
Amateurs by those with CW proficiency for a long time.    This is
particularly obnoxious for those who have a high degree of technical
competence (I exclude myself from this group).   The exchanges from one of
the most talented CW proponents on this group (according to his own
estimation) is a perfect example of this.  While people are complaining for
the "hostile" humour, why aren't they complaining about that behaviour.   I
wonder why.   Doesn't seem quite balanced to me - but then I am a colonial.
I have received more than a few private emails thanking me for my "colonial"
humour which serves (in their opinion) to counteract the negative matter
posted here and privately to them. This includes a very pathetic personal
attack by one the "moral-high grounders" on a very senior member of our
fraternity in a private email.   To that person, who knows who he is, either
have the courage to make your attacks public or better still, send them to
me privately - you will find that you will get as good as you give if you
want to engage in that sort of pathetic behaviour.  But I warn you, it won't
distress me one bit.

3.  When it comes to debating the allocations for CW in the LF bands the
recent arguments seem a bit precious, but I think can see the mind set for
this on the HF bands.   On every HF band the official WIA band plans show
that CW operators can operate virtually anywhere (except for beacon bands
and the top half of 10m) while other modes are excluded from RESERVED CW
segments (which can range up to nearly half the space on some bands).   I
guess it is only natural to expect the same deferential attitude on the LF
bands :-)

Anyway, this has grown tiresome (OK, OK, I guess I am to blame for a good
part of it),  but I make a plea once again to lighten up fellas.    Others
seem to be able to co-operate amongst themselves in similar situations.

73s Steve Olney (VK2ZTO/AXSO - QF56IK : Lat -33 34 07, Long +150 44 40)
=============================================
HomePage URLs:
http://www.qsl.net/vk2zto
http://www.zeta.org.au/~ollaneg

Containing:-
ULF, ELF, VLF & LF Experimentation
InfraSonic Experimentation
Laser Comms DX
Amateur Radio Astronomy
=============================================