Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!apple!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!encore!pinocchio!cook
From: cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.swl
Message-ID: <9989@multimax.Encore.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 89 12:53:56 GMT
Sender: news@Encore.COM
Reply-To: cook@encore.com
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: The Woodville Irregulars
Lines: 27

[chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) recently posted that: 
|
|Just to back up this point for people who aren't sure of the concept. SWLers
|are non-interactive users -- there is no microphone or transmitter. Hams, on
|the other hand, have transmitters and create broadcasts rather than simply
|listen in.
|
It's a nit, of course, but there are SWL's who DX the ham bands, logging
stations heard and asking them for confirmation cards (I've gotten several,
particularly from the (former?) iron curtain countries.)

|There is a lot of overlap between the two hobbies, but a lot of difference
|as well, in equipment, interests, philosophies and politics (I'm tired,
|frankly, of being told I could grow up to become a ham if I just stopped
|being lazy about learning code -- I don't *want* to learn code and I don't
|*want* to be a ham. Some hams feel SWL is a poor sister to amateur radio; it
|isn't -- and this exemplifies one reason why it's time to split swl out into
|its own group).
|
This is, unfortunately, a fair summation of the situation.  Just for the
records here is one "ham" who still enjoys SWL'ing and insisted on the
ability to tune the SW broadcast bands in his last ham receiver purchase.
I think rec.swl is a good idea and will find much support on USEnet.

        - Dale (N1US)   Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass.
INTERNET:  cook@encore.com   UUCP:  {buita || talcott || bellcore} !encore!cook
        "The more you complain the longer God lets you live."