RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 14th 03, 03:20 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham
radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of
"Reconstruction."

Prove it.

Show proof that 200,000 people would not have gotten US amateur radio
licenses between February 14, 1991 and April 15, 2000 if the Technician
class license had never lost its code test.

I don't think you have any proof. Or even any evidence. Just bluster.

that was an OLD argument in here and you LOST it.

How did I "lose" it, Len? Show us some proof of your assertion.

Getting all puffed up and antagonistic won't prove any case for
you on the morse code test. It won't prove any case for your
false interpretation of statistics that was on the AH0A website.

The only person I see getting puffed up and antagonistic is you, Len.

You would not accept statistics of a noted PCTA taken from the
FCC public database then and you refuse to accept it now.

What are you talking about?

In 1991, all Technicians were code tested.

In 2000, most Technicians were not code tested.

200,000 Technicians who were not code tested in 2000 is somewhere in the ball
park. Nobody denies that in 2000 there were a lot of Technicians who had not
passed code tests.

However, you claimed:

"Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham radio would have
been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of "Reconstruction.""

Reconstruction?

The only way we'd be "short" 200,000 is if none of the 200,000 got licenses.
Did your crystal ball tell you that none of them would have learned the code?

There's no point in rehashing an old argument where you LOST.

Ah, I see. You're using the Big Lie technique, where you simply claim to have
"won" without presenting any proof or even any evidence.

You won't make any valid "points" in here by repeating "you're
mistaken" and continual refusal to accept FCC database
information.

I'm not after "points". Just the facts. But you don't have any facts to back up
your claims.

You can repeat the same mistakes over and over but they'll still be mistakes,
Len.

N2EY