=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"John" =3D=3D Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes:

[...]

John What troubles me is this: You claimed to be a "coded Tech" and
John yet here you are griping about code testing. To me, this doesn't
John add up. If you've already passed the code test, then as long as
John you hold onto the CSCE and keep your license current, you no
John longer have to worry about it. The next step for you is to pass
John Element 3 and upgrade to General. Your tone suggests to me that
John you haven't passed a code test. Now, if you had posted your
John call like many (most) of us here do, I could have checked on QRZ
John and removed any such suspicions. As things stand, I and the rest
John of us here in rrap have to wonder, under the circumstances, if
John you even have a license at all. No license is required for
John posting here, but if you are indeed a ham - regardless of your
John license class - then be proud of that fact ande have the
John courtesy to let the rest of us know who we're talking to, that's
John all.

What troubles *me* is this:

1. Posters here see inconsistency where it doesn't exist.

There is no reason for a 20wpm Extra or a 5wpm Extra to support
code testing just because they passed it. I am a 5wpm Extra, and
I feel that the treaty was the only reason to maintain the test.
I wanted the license bad enough to pass the test, so I passed.
That doesn't mean I think that everyone else should. Trying to
read whether or not someone has passed the code test by their tone
is foolish, and wrapping the entire newsgroup under your "have to
wonder" umbrella is just foolish, which leads me to...

2. Posters here look down on those who post without callsigns.

Your comment that hams should "be proud" of their license is
foolish, but not as foolish as your justification for callsign
posting expectations -- "have the courtesy to let the rest of us
know who we're talking to". This thing we're using is called
"Usenet". It's been around for a long time, and the primary
technical form of identification for posters is something called
an "email address". It is also traditional to include one's real
name or a pseudonym, often in something called a "signature" which
is appended to their posts. I am using Dr. Evil quotes to make a
point. If you haven't figured it out yet, here it is again from
another direction. If I were calling CQ on 80 meters and using my
email address, you'd be unimpressed. Someone out there could
easily Google my email address to find out my name and other
information and then search the FCC database to find my callsign
and license class, but that's not an acceptable defense for not
using the proper and traditional identification methods. My
callsign shows up in approximately seven Usenet posts across three
newsgroups, none of which include this group. When I speak here,
I address myself as I wish to be addressed, which is by those
forms of identifications, formal and traditional, that are
appropriate to this media. The headers of my posts even include
suggested attributions for replies to my posts. The lack of a
callsign in my posts doesn't negate the value of what I type. It
frankly isn't relevant to any posts -- my license class is
relevant to some posts, but not many -- so I don't see any need to
include that information.

These comments aren't solely directed at you. You just wrote a post
that pushed two of my buttons. You should only take it personally if
those two items are things you really personally believe.
=20=20=20=20
Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/OsPbGPFSfAB/ezgRArY9AKCskgctJLmecnj+wg8uLHGcqF2H4QCg7oE7
oNqMdjKL8kXAsp59D/WO5Kc=3D
=3DXk87
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----