John Smith wrote:
Len:

I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the
way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds!

gee you are leting Me out of that hrrrrmph

We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in!

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:39:27 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 7:23 am

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).

I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years
ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement?

Institutional inertia.

INCORRECT.

1. The LAW (try the Communications Act of 1934 for starters)
doesn't work that way.

2. The FCC could legally do it just the same but would face
later LAW in the Courts from all the outraged membership
organizations, enough to delay everything for years more.

3. The ARRL lobbyists (both the law firm and the lobbying
firm) were dead set against the FCC doing anything without
"the League's Permission."


Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will
have *any* effect on the outcome?

Negative.

ANY negative with another negative added to it will still be
NEGATIVE.


Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the
majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC
change their position?

I believe that the way the argument is framed is critical. It seems
that the argument has been put forth about getting rid of a regulation.
And we all "know" that regulation is a bad thing. Element 1 goes away. I
consider the odds of it staying are about the same as a singularity
popping up.

WOW! Those SOUR GRAPES ripened FAST...you've already made gallons
of WHINE out of it!

Prosit.


Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?

*Is* it a representative sample?

Does that matter?

No it doesn't' matter. I simply want to point out to people such as
Bill and Jhxn that the comments are not even close to a statistically
proper poll. I expect better out of Bill.

Wow! You WHINE-tipplers better not drive anywhere...you are DUI.

Tsk, is your definition of "representative sample" equivalent to
WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN?

Silly question, of course it is!

Now, if the ARRL had conducted a "poll," it would be absolutely,
positively, peachy-keen ACCURATE...even if the poll respondents
were League members and good, God-fearing Morsemen of high rate!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hee haw