Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 5:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Does it matter?
Do you matter?
Of course I do. Just like you matter.
The FCC has placed "ringers" in VE tests before and has never...not
even
once...questioned the validity, quality or method of delivery of Element 1.
of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams.
"Standard practices?"
Wow!!! A wasted piece of correspondence if there were ever one!
"I hereby inform the FCC that I am using standard, good amateur
practices. Does the FCC agree or disagree? You have 72 hours to
respond. Without a dissenting opinion, this standard, good amateur
practice becomes law."
Hihi!
Why would the VEC's have to inform the FCC of standard, good amateur
practice???
Because they weren't standard?
Because they were at variance with the regulations?
How long after the fact of implementing these "standard practices" did
the VEC's notify the FCC?
Brain, you really are stretching for a "pont" to make, aren't you?
Stretching usually isn't necessary to punt.
Sure it is...But you're STILL stretching to make a POINT.
FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams.
Can you document that the FCC even received such a notification?
Can you document they ahven't?
I'm not the one making the claim of such correspondence.
Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.
In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for
their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.
Hmmm? Wonder what a person would call "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse
Code?
Indeed. Does it matter? The FCC itself ahs no argument with it.
Lots of typos today, Steve. Time to check your digital pill minder.
Redirect from the topic to the typos noted.
Also noted, and even more glaringly obvious, is any lack of response on
YOU part to the issues discussed.
Casught with no valid response to the topic being discussed, Brain tries
to duck out with a childish reference to "typos".
Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use
of
Farnsworth spacing.
Really?
Really.
I understand Morse Code perfectly (to about 40WPM in contests...25WPM
in
"routine" QSO's...I have no problem with it at all.
What you understand is immaterial. We are talking about newcomers to
the service taking their first exam. It's not as if they have a lot
of experience at it.
No, they don't. But they, like any other adult in the United States, do
have an obligation to inform themselves of the testing criteria, potential
pitfalls, and their rights under FCC and/or other U.S.Government regulations.
Those who study "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code may not know enough
to ask for "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code. They will be
unprepared for the significantly faster delivery of Farnsworth Code -
and they fail. They go home scratching their head wondering why they
choked on the exam.
Oh?
You have some "scientific" studies that valiate this asertion, Brain?
Did you mean "assertion, Brian?"
You've done a side-by-side comparison of different methodologies to
validate this?
Those who've studied Farnsworth Code pass Farnsworth Exams.
Those who've studied Morse Code typically do not pass Farnsworth
Exams.
Just FYI, the "non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code" is referred to as
Morse Code. You will find references to it in Part 97, but you will
find no reference to "Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code."
There is NO reference to spacing techniques in Part 97 for Morse Code.
You are a genius.
Thank-you for stating the obvious.
Now allow me to return the favor.
You're an ill-informed, arrogant, rheorical little toad with little if any
appreciation for ANY of the topic material of which you attempt to engage
others in in this forum.
There. We're even.
There is no "technical specification" for Morse Code in any federal
regulation that I am aware of. Post one and I will acknowledge it
publically.
You said you know Morse Code to 40wpm in contests, and to 25wpm in
routine QSO's.
How can you make that statement?
Becasue I know how to determine the speed at which I am sending. Comes
with PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.
Post it, show me a federal law that says THIS is the "Morse Code" that
MUST be used and I will send you a Savings Bond for $100.
Please send me nothing directly.
I'll do as I please.
Is this an acceptance of the challenge, or do you conceede that no such
document exists?
Considering the number of times that Part 97 has been toyed with, you
would think that the FCC could make a mention of it. But they
haven't. So much for your "legal basis."
English jurisprudence has established that those things not
specifically
prohibited or regulated by law are not illegal...Therefore ARE "legal".
Thus, you find Morse Code required for Exams.
I find Morse Code required for the General Class and the Amateur Extra
based upon FCC rules and regulations, and in appreciation for the on-going
"discussion' in public forums to determine if it will remain a requirement in
the future.
Do you disagree that FCC rules and regulations dictate the demonstration
of Morse Code proficiency skills in ELement 1?
In plain terms, that would be Morse Code.
No kiddin', eh...?!?! I figgered you were just pulling that one out of
your hat.
All you repeat again and again is the "non-dissenting FCC opinion."
So what is the date of this correspondence?
Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?
That is what I asked.
And you were told....repeatedly.
Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it
was
improper or illegal to use?
I believe that the FCC is unaware.
I believe you're an idiot. It's been well documented in this forum form
the last couple of weeks. Nice job.
Steve, K4YZ