RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 3rd 05, 06:15 PM

wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 15:01:08 -0800, wrote:

wrote:

Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?

what majority?

Where've you been? Did you miss the news about the hurricanes and
Scooter Libby's indictment too?

Their bliss
over the efficacy of morsemanship shines
on under skies unclouded
by progress in technology...
which had already begun before they
got their first amateur license.

You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.

so what you keep beating that dead horse it smells pretty bad by now

Yep, Len's carcass is beginning to stink up the joint after that "Extra
right out of the box" comment.

They BELIEVE deep in their
little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential
ingredient in
becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert,"
"well-rounded"
and a "leader" in amateurism.

And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len?

It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.

nice to see the ARRL can whip it some of it memebrs into a lather

Is it your opinion that the ARRL told its membership what view to take
in commenting on the 05-235 issue?

and of course your logica is Flawed in suggesting that all Ham favor
coded extra oppose Code free general making the No code position
clearly the purality

What is clear is that you comprehend what Jim wrote.

and indeed the coded extra support just shows the foolish ness of the
Procode side

I know it'll be a stretch, but do you think you could tell us what
thought processes took place in your formulation of such a view?

if there is any need for code testing at HF it applies to the general
as well as the Extras

Good idea, Mark.

so the Procode side merely shows itself as being for restriction whad
enough flushing the restN

Let's see if I have this correct: The procode testing side is for
restriction whad enough flushing the rest? Can that be what you meant
to convey?

Dave K8MN