RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 26th 04, 02:39 AM

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
"Flip-flop", Brain?

How do you get that from the post (requoted in it's entirety
here)...???

Posted with enough information that you just might get it.

The "disincentive" to which he refers is to taking a test for
which there is no REGULATORY requirement...

The Morse Exam has been a regulatory requirement since 1912. TAFKA
Rev Jim has fought to keep it a regulatory requirement while many
others have called it a disincentive (obstacle, hurdle, etc). Now
that you propose that the Morse Exam be kept for access to the lowest
100 KHz of each band, he says it's a disincentive.

Where's the "flip-flop", other than the ones you wear in the
shower?

You stay out of my shower.

Steve, K4YZ

Read it again, Steve.

bb

(William) wrote in message om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

What am I missing here?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill, your question reminds me of a scenario painted by Steve, to
which TAFKA Rev Jim responded below. It is very enlightening to see
that after a decade of saying that the Morse Code Exam was no barrier
at all to the Amateur Service, he pipes in with a new theory - that a
Morse Exam is a disincentive to the use of CW on HF.

Thought you might enjoy the flip-flop.

bb
----------------
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:
Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?
----------------