"My handle is"....

[AgentCOPP1]

There is a lot of bad lingo I hear everyday on vhf/uhf including "handle", "roger", "copying the mail", "home QTH". I agree that new hams coming into the hobby just mimic what they hear. I have pointed this out to others I talk to and almost always get told I shouldn't criticize the way others speak, basically mind my own business. The one that bugs me the most is people giving their call and saying, "for ID." Really, what else is it used for?

The thing that bothers me most is when people say "roger" when they're supposed to say "affirmative." I know you don't really even need to use that on VHF/UHF ham but even in aviation, it's an extremely prevalent error that almost everyone does. When someone asks you "wow Bob, did you see that terrible weather last night," you don't respond with "I understand," or roger. Roger means I understand what you just said, and affirmative means yes.

I don't know why but it really bothers me when people get that wrong lol.

 

[Ed_Seedhouse]

You guys have way too much free time.

 

[zz0468]

You guys have way too much free time.

I agree. Every field of endeavor has it's own jargon, it's own language. Some of the jargon in ham radio leans toward the inane, and I chose not to use it. I also chose not to listen to, or worry about it.

Then again, some of the inanities are intended to be light hearted inanities... like pronouncing "roger" with with a long 'o' and a hard 'g'. That sort of stuff doesn't get used with strangers who would think one as insane. It's used on the private repeaters where we KNOW we're insane.

Lighten up... it's AMATEUR radio. Now, stand by while I yell at that nitwit telling us what his 'personal' is.

 

[zz0468]

...I recall listening to a ham operator proclaim that he and his family have had been hams for years. I didn't think much of it until I heard him reply "negatory" to a question.

I prefer 'nyet".

 

[SCPD]

Everything associated with human beings interacting with each other "evolves" or de-evolves, depending on your point of view ;-) , and language is certainly no exception. Letting it "get to you" is counterproductive.

You know, after so many years have gone by, I still don't like using the word "hertz" after the prefix kilo or mega.
It's supposed to be cycles! The word cycles has a definite meaning in association with kilo or mega, and hertz just doesn't!

If you're not an 'ole timer, you just won't "get" the above paragraph.

(I'd put a smiley/grinning face icon after the above sentence, but I don't see that option available).

 

[rapidcharger]

The thing that bothers me most is when people say "roger" when they're supposed to say "affirmative."

That bothers me too. Especially when they say 10-4.
Not in the ham bands but elsewhere.

 

[N8IAA]

I haven't read the whole thread, just the first page, but the use of Q signals, hi-hi, and such, is shorthand for CW contacts.
I, myself, prefer plain English. It definitely is easier to understand
Some of the older hams love talking in Q signals like it is a secret language:lol:
I was reminded that when I went on 2m/440, not to use the CW shorthand. Since one was generally full quieting on a repeater. I guess for some, old habits never die
Larry

 

[SCPD]

I remember one short call I made on the local 2m repeater a couple decades ago (and I did it on purpose).

I simply said two words:

CQ (my callsign)

I waited for someone to reply, and sure enough, someone did. The good fellow asked how long I had been a ham, and more or less got around to telling me (politely I must admit) that calling CQ on a repeater is something that is just not done, and is sort of a "novice" mistake. At that time, I had a 1X2 call, and had it for at least 15 years, so of course I knew what "convention" was.

Since I'm an 'ole timer, I actually remember the original reason that CQ became "verboten" on a repeater. The unwritten rule was made up because when repeaters first arrived on the scene, some guys would call CQ like they were on HF... over and over. Of course, that is not necessary on a repeater. Everyone knows that.

However, my way of thinking was that one single "CQ" stated my intentions exactly, and I saw nothing wrong with it. It was short, directly to the point. The ultimate in efficiency, clarity, and communication. I communicated this to the good fellow in response to his comment (and very politely also, I might add).

He wasn't convinced with my logic, it seems that my making that call on the repeater was akin to standing up in church when people were praying and shouting out "oh s**t", or something similar. We had a short, but "strained" conversation after that, and we politely parted ways.

That QSO was a good lesson in human behavior.

 

[elk2370bruce]

Like many amateur radio ops, I don't get my skivvies all in a knot if someone uses a "less than correct" pro-word. Its hardly worth a couple of megabytes of irate prose. I leave that to the so called "purist" curmudgeons on QRZed where it can be passionately argued for many pages blaming
them dagnabbit no-coder. Otherwise, what difference does it really make?

 

[Darth_vader]

^-- +1

"So, darth, when are you going to get your ticket so you can join us via Echolink?"

Ticket: Eventually. Maybe sometime this year, maybe next; don't really know.

Echolink/repeaters: Probably never. Why would I want to repeat the same mistakes I made the last time around?

 

[AgentCOPP1]

Darth, give it another shot. Don't just assume all repeaters are bad!

 

[w2txb]

... like pronouncing "roger" with with a long 'o' and a hard 'g'...

Better yet is, "Rogeroonie".