View Single Post
  #23   Report Post  
Old June 27th 07, 12:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
[email protected] N2EY@AOL.COM is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Ideas needed for a new organization

On Jun 26, 4:28 pm, AF6AY wrote:
wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:44:58 EDT:

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:


The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.


That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.


I stated an opinion.


You stated:

"The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998."

How is that an opinion? It sure looks like an attempt to state a fact
- except that it's not true.

Opinions aren't "test" answers. There are no
"incorrect" or "correct" lables except from one's own subjective
viewpoints.


All opinions are not equally valid. A person can have, and state the
opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the sun
rises in the west and sets in the east, but that is clearly not the
case.

You subjective viewpoint does not over-rule mine. :-)


The objective facts prove that your statement about the ARRL
hierarchy in 1998 is false. It is simply not true. Your belief in it
does not make it valid.

I used the "code thing" as illustrative of the ARRL's conservative
attitudes towards code testing.


The facts prove the opposite. In 1998 the ARRL proposed across the
board reductions in Morse Code testing for General, Advanced and
Extra class licenses. Hardly a "conservative attitude". Yet you
stated:

"The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against abolishing the code test or
even reducing the test rate back in 1998."

If they were "dead-set against...reducing the test rate back in
1998.",
then why, in 1998, did ARRL propose those reductions?

It was not an attempt to revive
some ages-old argument over just code testing. It was an
illustration, an example.


Your example was faulty, because it was not based on what
actually happened.

Here's what really happened back then:


What "really happened back then" is history. It is documented.
By others.


And those documents prove that you were mistaken about
the ARRL's position on Morse Code testing in 1998. They prove
that what I wrote is what actually happened.

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:


The ARRL has never given up on trying to KEEP code testing for at
least Amateur Extras up to and including NPRM 05-235. That is
also documented. At the FCC.


Not the point, Len.

ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.


Incorrect.


In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.


How is having "no opinion" a "support?" :-)


You wrote that "ARRL was against it.". But ARRL wasn't against it
at all. The policy changed more than two years before WRC-03.

Incidentally, MOST of ITU-R S25 was rewritten at WRC-03; S25.5
only applied to administrations' license testing requirements in
regards to international morse code.


Not the point, Len.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.


The ARRL refused to bend on code testing for Amateur Extra...they
HAD to have it in there. :-) That is only natural. The ARRL
represents its membership. The ARRL's core membership is made
up of long-time amateurs favoring morse code skill as the epitome of
US amateur radio skills.


Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.


Comments on Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRMs) are not a
"vote."


Nobody says their a vote, Len.

What the comments are is the voice of those who bother to express an
opinion to FCC. And when those comments were counted, the majority
opinion did not support the reductions and elimination of Morse Code
testing that were later enacted by FCC.

The comments are not limited to those with amateur licenses, or even
those who intend to get amateur licenses.

Anyone who wishes to look can go to the FCC's ECFS and Search
under 05-235 and 25 November 2005. On that date I submitted an
EXHIBIT done after the end of official Comment period on 05-235 and
offered solely as an Exhibit. In that I made tallies day-by-day of
each
and every Comment and Replies to Comments totaling 3,795 made
from 15 July 2005 to past the official end of 14 November 2005. I
read
each and every one of the 3,795 documents. Note that nearly half of
the documents were posted before the official start of the Comment
period on 05-235. I commented on that fact in the Exhibit.

That Exhibit has been argued before and I will not reprise it.


You just did.

The
Exhibit document stands on its own and was done over a year and a
half ago. The FCC accepted it enough to post it for public viewing
on their ECFS.


FCC does that with practically all comments or exhibits sent in. That
does not mean the comments or exhibits are valid or correct, or that
FCC agrees with them.

But that's all besides the point.

In 1998, the ARRL hierarchy was not against reductions in Morse Code
testing. That is proved by the ARRL's proposal to reduce the Morse
Code test speeds for General, Advanced and Extra licenses from 13 wpm,
13 wpm and 20 wpm to 5 wpm, 12 wpm, and 12 wpm, respectively.

Fact - not opinion.

Jim, N2EY