On 2 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, " wrote:
From: Leo on Tues, Jan 2 2007 3:06 pm
On 1 Jan 2007 18:03:36 -0800, wrote:
wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

Who are you to judge when a person is responsible enough?

...says the guy who is doing the same thing, by arguing the
counterpoint!

Ain't it something, though! :-)

Happy Holiday time to you, Leo, long time no "see."

Happy Holidays to you too, Len. It has been quite a while!

I've been reading the group occasionally, but there hasn't been much
useful communications rising above the psychotic rantings of the crazy
few for a long time.......until the code decision finally came down!
(and balooning season ended) ......

Har! :-)

Well, I've been reassured that miracles indeed DO happen
down here! :-)

I would consider that the pro-coders in this newsgroup
consider themselves ultra-qualified for judgement. They
took the code-test here at maximum rate and are thus
supremely "qualified" to judge anything or anybody!
Those who haven't been federally tested for morse code
cognition skill are "untouchables," "always making
mistakes" and/or "always wrong." :-)

Well, our favourite representative pro coders on this group certainly
seem to!

Heh, I wouldn't call him either 'favourite' or 'favorite.'
Certainly a Prime Example. Prime, as in being non-
divisible by an integer...or NCTA. :-)

I see that our good friend Captain Arithmetic is busily
preparing to chart the demise of the ARS in the post-Morse apocalypse,
ham by ham. Somehow, he's changed his tune, though....used to be that
Morse would never be dropped - now, it appears that he knew it all the
time! A true visionary indeed.....

Morsemen have always self-defined themselves with 20/15
hindsight. In fact, "Captain Arithmetic" seems to do
little but look behind himself to the past.

....and, qualified they were, anyway. The new regs eliminate code
entirely from US Amateur licensing, leaving them 'qualified' in
something which no longer exists, from a licensing perspective. In
other words....useless as a 'status' indicator (as you will be able to
reach the coveted Extra level, for example, without knowing any Code
at all).

"Coveted Extra level?" I've never looked at that hobby
"title" as anything to covet. As for coveting TITLES,
there's plenty of fraternal orders I can think of with
fancier TITLES (plus costumes) one can "enjoy" with as
much cameraderie. No technical skill needed but still
with the same hazing that old-timers seem to think
necessary. :-)

Morse remains an option up here in Canada, for testing and
qualification for HF-band access. Either pass the Morse test, or
score an extra 10% above the pass mark on the written exam, and you're
on the air on HF. An interesting compromise!

I find that most interesting considering our nations'
pasts and traditions. Canadian leaders are somewhat
rejecting their past reliance on English traditions and
looking towards the future but not hesitant to use
compromises to bind old and new. Compromise isn't
(generally) considered a bad word up there. On the
other hand, Americans who once fought wars (two) to get
away from English rule, have become as covetous of TITLES
as any European. The independence of thought has become
a pejorative down here and one MUST "follow the party
(as in old royalty) line."

Operating any transmitter on HF takes no real skill
nor is any formal training involved with long periods of
practice. I first operated on HF 54 years ago come
February...with a couple hours of informal instruction.
No license required, no hazing prior to operation, just
do it as instructed. All the bitter recriminatory
arguing in here by the morsers is in the POLITICS of
AUTHORIZTION by a nation's ruling body. Morsers have
always confused authorization with 'qualification' but
that 'confusion' is only on the surface. They have been
deliberately mis-using words carrying some emotional
baggage in order to belittle the NCTA. [consider them
"closet hypocrites"]

I am in favor of Industry Canada's compromise in regards
to morse code testing. It should satisfy both the olde-
tyme morser's "my way or the highway" mentality and the
realism of today with a look to the future. A problem
down here is the outright beligerance of some of the US
morsemen adamantly INSISTING on keeping the old standards
and practices (with all old traditions and regulations
absolutely intact regardless of their quaint archaic
nature.

What I find amusing is the hypocrisy of "old" versus
"old." The beligerant morsers decry my "age" as being
unmeaningful and something to be discarded. Yet, those
same insistent beligerants want to steadfastly KEEP the
standards and practices in federal regulations that are
as old (and some older) than I am! :-)


Well, "Coronation Street" isn't a big thing down here.

Kinda figured that........kindly substitute "General Hospital", "As
The World Turns", or any other long-running soap with a recurrent plot
line.......

OK, understood. :-) [ugh...]


Try "Midsomer
Murders" perhaps...the inspectors busy trying to catch
the evil-doers that killed off code-testing in US
amateur radio. :-)

I know who did it!!....it was the FCC, in the study......with a
vision....

Oh...heck, Leo, now you've spoiled the ending for me!

Now I have to write a memo and cancel "DaVinci's Inquest"
[a good Canadian production in my opinion...but lacked
the afterburner-on effort of PR necessary to be a network
hit down here...a thank-you to my cable service for
running it on an independent channel!]

With our without our FCC finally bothering with amateur
radio regulation modernization, I'm not champing at the
bit (or slobbering in my 'rocking chair' in front of my
'green screen' terminal) to get an amateur radio hobby
license. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Don't need a
"title" to put in front or behind my name (as if it were
some 'royal' thing or Nobel-quality honorific).

Maybe I'll spend some time in Las Vegas at the CSI Lab,
to check out (forensically) "who dunnit." More fun
there outside of the lab. "Life's a gamble," isn't it?
Anyway, it's no "mystery" at all. The FCC announced it
is going to do it down here. They aren't "O.J." :-)

Cordially,