In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
[snip

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are
always
referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are
also
shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data
modes at
all.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST

Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was supposed to
mean.

... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.

Exactly!

This thread is meant to be about that NCVEC paper - particularly the parts that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em into 10
kHz and have fun.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from what I
can see.

The fact remains that the NCVEC paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).

[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]

Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

73 de Jim, N2EY