View Single Post
  #8   Report Post  
Old August 19th 05, 07:14 PM
John Smith
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AOF:

One thing for sure, this group sure has a lot which do not value
having anyone respecting their credibility... after a sufficient length
of time it becomes obvious, the vast amount dis-information which flows
off their keyboards... I think it is deeper than just them stating
falsehoods they know to be untrue, it really is a depiction of their
ignorance...

John

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:48:11 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Band allocation should be allocated on long term statistics generated in
regards to the modes used... (past year or two)

As CW continues its' drop, it needs less and less allocations... as
no-coders now enter CW will have to shrink to accommodate the new users
and their modes...

John


And yet His comments are some of the best I have seen in defense of
Code testing

He addreses the reasoning to the Public Good tries to relive the FCC of
the Burdens involved

all in all a decent defense of the indefensable

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:09:49 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Just why would there need to be a test in order to use this specturm
set aside

One can either USE Morse Code or not

But still the plea that Morse Code needs welfare in order to endure

David Stinson wrote:
Comments submitted to the FCC,
advocating ARRL administration of
Morse license endorsment:
-------------------

18 Aug. 2005
WT Docket 05-235,
Amateur Radio Morse Code Testing Requirement.

cuting to save BW