Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a
schematic and ask them to find a component by function.

I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the
component

I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the
balanced modulator circuitry".

You used to have to draw a few schematics on blank paper - no hints.
Now you have to be able to identify a resistor. Big deal - that
should take all of 3 seconds to memorize. Memorizing which side of
the heart sends out the oxygenated blood doesn't make you a cardiac
surgeon.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a
schematic and ask them to find a component by function.

I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the
component

I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the
balanced modulator circuitry".
you were vague not my fault you can't express yourself

You used to have to draw a few schematics on blank paper - no hints.
so? you used to have as purely pacitcal matter build at at least some
of your station
Now you have to be able to identify a resistor. Big deal - that
should take all of 3 seconds to memorize. Memorizing which side of
the heart sends out the oxygenated blood doesn't make you a cardiac
surgeon.
nor is a EE needed to be ham and contrube to advancing the state of the
radio art

the tests needed to cover those things THEN

THEN they more os less needed to inculde Morse code (lathough it could
have been avoided but for the treaty)

times change

adapt or die

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:

The CW text requirement is like the requirement for a foreign language
requirement for some college degrees, ...


I carefully avoided any foreign language
requirement for my BS EE.


Computer program was substituted for foreign language where I went to
college.

Dave

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

David G. Nagel wrote:
Computer program was substituted for foreign language where I went to
college.

At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a
foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 18 Jul 2006 15:04:01 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a
schematic and ask them to find a component by function.

I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the
component

I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the
balanced modulator circuitry".

you were vague

I said, "ask them to find a component by function". That's only vague
to those who don't understand simple English.

not my fault you can't express yourself

Not in what you use for language but, then, I speak English.

nor is a EE needed to be ham and contrube to advancing the state of the
radio art

No one said otherwise - but refusing to learn anything shouldn't be a
criterion, and it certainly doesn't contribute to anything but sloth.

the tests needed to cover those things THEN

THEN they more os less needed to inculde Morse code (lathough it could
have been avoided but for the treaty)

times change

adapt or die

Oh, I could pass a test on the technical aspects of communications as
it's practiced today. Could you? (Rhetorical question - I know you
couldn't.) And I don't mean could you memorize enough answers to
pass.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:21:22 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:

Computer program was substituted for foreign language where I went to
college.

Computer programming wasn't (as in, didn't exist), when I went to
college. :) Except maybe at IBM.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:10:39 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a
foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why.

Language is an art?

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Al Klein wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:10:39 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:


At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a
foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why.


Language is an art?

Back in the olden days a BA degree focused on art, humanities, language,
sociology, etc.

Back in the olden days a BS degree focused on math, more math, physics,
chemistry, biological sciences, etc.

The basic difference was M A T H ... M O R E M A T H ... then four or more
semesters of C A L C U L U S.

In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still
like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean
something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...]

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400, Dave wrote:

In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still
like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean
something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...]

It's only been 43 years for me, but I've also forgotten some of the
math and I also like to read about some of the humanities. But I
still earn my living doing the BS stuff, although being a field
anthropologist does sound interesting.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Al Klein wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400, Dave wrote:


In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still
like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean
something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...]


It's only been 43 years for me, but I've also forgotten some of the
math and I also like to read about some of the humanities. But I
still earn my living doing the BS stuff, although being a field
anthropologist does sound interesting.

I retired from the BS business in 2000.

Now I'm an ordained minister, ordained in 1988 as a Catholic Deacon, and serve
as Chaplain to the incarcerated in addition to parish responsibilities.

Us old hams have diversified interests !!

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

BH

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Brian Hill wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.
Indeed I understand the points of the CW crwod but I simply reject the
ntotions that merits of CW merit the strangle hold it has

after all I can do even EME without knowing a BIT of Morse did so last
night

BH

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but
it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once
it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out &
clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but
it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once
it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out &
clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio and
there is no reason to think it would improve things.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the
politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.
certainly would but then you are into killing the ars of course


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the
politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.
ask Carl Stevenson about that one

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.


You're most likely correct on getting into the "politics" of the ARRL to
"try" to get anywhere. But, good luck. It is more like a "good ole boys
club". Anytime I've ever seen any reps to the area at a hamfest - they acted
like snobs more than trying to communicate with hams of their concerns OR to
try to win those hams who weren't members - to become members. If the rep
couldn't give me the time of day, the ARRL didn't need my money either. I
stopped my membership when it was due for renewal. That was a good 15 years
ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"

lou

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote:

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be
able to put it on the air immediately.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be
able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's
initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the
real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

somebody wrote ...

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

.... and new aircraft pilot license requirement: Demonstrate an engine start
by spinning the prop -- by hand. Even if you intend to fly only jets, some
old "prop-job" might be the only thing that can get through in an emergency.

I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for
the transition away from spark?

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "
wrote:

after all I can do even EME

I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on
an EME path.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:

ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"

Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to
Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are
so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of
human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any
better.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:36:13 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:


"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote:

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be
able to put it on the air immediately.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be
able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's
initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the
real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license.

Ahh.. the 1977 solution.. first, middle and last initials followed by your 5
digit zip code....

And remember how that "improved" things? :)

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "
wrote:

after all I can do even EME

I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on
an EME path.
doubt it all you like

figure the path with any precison no, but I am can use the various
charts to know know I need to contact various types of stations


theseday 100w a 13b2 a preamp and you are able to pick up the larger
stations, and they can hear you

why do Ineed to be figure the path loss when I can determine the
parameters for sucess.

I honestly don't care how much of the signal islost along the way

I care wether a readble signal reach the otherside

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewithother.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:


ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"


Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to
Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are
so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of
human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any
better.


Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote
for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians.

Dave WD9BDZ

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

David G. Nagel wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe"
wrote:


ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"


Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to
Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are
so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of
human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any
better.


Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote
for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians.

Dave WD9BDZ
anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should
inquire of Carl Stevenson

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:05:27 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:

Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote
for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians.

And, like politics, those who don't vote deserve the representatives
they get.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should
inquire of Carl Stevenson

Or Steve Mendelson?

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should
inquire of Carl Stevenson

Or Steve Mendelson?
sorry don't know his story

I Know Carl stried to stand for ARRL director (midalantic) and was
refused a place on the ballot

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be
gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys
but it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because
once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull
back out & clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio
and there is no reason to think it would improve things.


Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing
won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees
remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again
should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to
study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this
requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it
a bad idea. You're just Lazy.



2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


Thank you.



3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?



5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Slow Code wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:



Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.
you mean the ARRL gave in and tired to make a grab for what it thought
it could get (coded extra) and failed opening to door for our final
victory

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be
gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys
but it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because
once it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull
back out & clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio
and there is no reason to think it would improve things.


Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing
won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees
remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again
should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to
study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this
requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it
a bad idea. You're just Lazy.



Not hardly. Every time they change the pool, I get an up-to-date study
guide just to keep current and see what's new. Could pass the test any day
of the week and twice on Sunday. By the way the exam has changed in 10
years. There is some common stuff but there is also new stuff.

However, the biggest problem would be manpower for conducting the tests.
Based on the current number of hams, that would be over 60,000 people
retesting every year. The existing test system (and the prior systems when
things were administered by the FCC) were all designed around the single
testing concept. Essentially, it would mean almost every VE team would need
to conduct test sessions weekly or hold huge test sessions monthly. There
just aren't enough of us to do that. Plus many facilities now charge for
the use of the facility. And the bigger the room, the higher the fee.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


Thank you.



3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.


I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

The filter argument, I consider totally bogus.

Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the
criteria for determining if it should be tested.



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?


In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade
don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their
licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to
contribute anyway.



5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you
want.


The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through
surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out
with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we
discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued
policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank
account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed.
Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The
ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if
you know anything about radio.


So why don't you go run for office and promote your platform? Or form your
own lobbying group? Complaining here won't get it done. If you want your
platform to prevail, the YOU have to do the work to convince people. While
the ARRL proposal was not what I wanted, it did indeed reflect some of the
things that a significant percentage wanted.

As far as the ARRL padding the corporate bank account, if that is true, then
you need to report them to the IRS as non-profit organizations are not
allowed to do this.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can
exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff
allowing you better enjoyment of the service.


I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.
meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

The filter argument, I consider totally bogus.
because

Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the
criteria for determining if it should be tested.
Dee do you seriously support the implied postion that if we end Code
tesing we should indeed end Code USE?



4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.

Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep
studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade
after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be
bad?


In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade
don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their
licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to
contribute anyway.

thanks a lot btch

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

"Sal M. Onella" wrote:


I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for
the transition away from spark?


Yes, they did.


--
73, Eric F. Richards, KB0YDN,
"A few old diehards still blazoned 'Spark Forever!' on their QSL cards..."
- from "200 Meters & Down", copyright 1936, ARRL

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by
asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence
to pass a real test.

Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other.
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if
they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of
radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary
hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already
know it at a basic level.

meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone
as mode welfare

As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by
asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence
to pass a real test.
no one hass advocated giving a license away except of course procoders
like yourself
Funny I can mange ee qso's (second one last night) and yet you inist I
am unintelgent based on my inabilty to serve as a modem, a machine
funtion

VENT (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada!
 

Paul Hinman wrote:
J. D. B. wrote:
Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you
get sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut
down for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money
(a typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any
care and you'll just die. But hey, your life savings will still be
intact! Is socialized health care great or what?

- At least in Canada you get to keep
- your life savings if you get sick.

I am a Canadian with serious chronic health problems and I have much
more experience with the health system than I would like to have, I
have come close being a silent key several times, I am sure that there
are some who feel that is too bad that I was allowed to breed before my
medical problems became obvious. In the minds of some I suppose that I
have peed in the genetic pool.

I have never heard of a Canadian hospital shutting down because the
money did not last until fiscal year end. While there are some
weaknesses in our system such as delays in elective procedures but when
the sand was running out of the hour glass there was always a system to
help me out. Here everyone can get insured, there is an option to opt
out of medicare but who would?

Think of the overhead that American doctors face having to deal with
multiple insurance companies, each with different forms and procedures.
Think of the people who can't get medical insurance no matter what the
cost. Think of those who don't have because they can't afford it. And
then there are those who exercise their right not have it.

In a situation where people get treated but can't afford to pay, the
rates for everyone else must go up to compensate.

Canada is not perfect but it is a pretty nice place to live and we try
to contribute as best we can.

By the way, if I were an American I would vote republican but I am not a
single issue voter so don't construe that to mean that I from the far
right wing. Consider me a fiscal conservative with a social conscience.

--
Paul S. Hinman - VE6LDS
long West 113 deg 27 min 20 sec
lat North 53 deg 27 min 3 sec
Maidenhead Locator DO33gk


Canada is a perfectly wonderful place.

The original posting title "Democrat's Out-Sourcing 'Hate America' To
Canada !" sounds like it is right out of the Colbert Report.

In America today, to be fiscally conservative, one cannot be a
Republican. What's the deficit today? 3 trillion? 9 trillion? Who
gets a tax cut? the middle class? not lately.

Praise the Lord and pass the exemptions.

VENT (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada !
 

In article TY1Ag.303358$iF6.152609@pd7tw2no,
Paul Hinman wrote:

J. D. B. wrote:

Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you
get sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut
down for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money
(a typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any
care and you'll just die. But hey, your life savings will still be
intact! Is socialized health care great or what?


- At least in Canada you get to keep
- your life savings if you get sick.

I am a Canadian with serious chronic health problems and I have much
more experience with the health system than I would like to have, I
have come close being a silent key several times, I am sure that there
are some who feel that is too bad that I was allowed to breed before my
medical problems became obvious. In the minds of some I suppose that I
have peed in the genetic pool.

I have never heard of a Canadian hospital shutting down because the
money did not last until fiscal year end. While there are some
weaknesses in our system such as delays in elective procedures but when
the sand was running out of the hour glass there was always a system to
help me out. Here everyone can get insured, there is an option to opt
out of medicare but who would?

Think of the overhead that American doctors face having to deal with
multiple insurance companies, each with different forms and procedures.
Think of the people who can't get medical insurance no matter what the
cost. Think of those who don't have because they can't afford it. And
then there are those who exercise their right not have it.

In a situation where people get treated but can't afford to pay, the
rates for everyone else must go up to compensate.

Canada is not perfect but it is a pretty nice place to live and we try
to contribute as best we can.

By the way, if I were an American I would vote republican but I am not a
single issue voter so don't construe that to mean that I from the far
right wing. Consider me a fiscal conservative with a social conscience.

Interestingly, my wife is also a Canadian, she moved down here to the US
just before we got married. She worked only part time in Canada.
Aparantly, the health care is NOT universal, as many meds she needed she
had to pay for out of her own pocket, and had to wait months for an MRI
(She just had one here on one weeks notice). Yup, there are issues here
too, but the Canadian system is far from perfect either.

VENT (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada!
 

Jerseyj wrote:

In article TY1Ag.303358$iF6.152609@pd7tw2no,
Paul Hinman wrote:



J. D. B. wrote:



Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you
get sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut
down for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money
(a typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any
care and you'll just die. But hey, your life savings will still be
intact! Is socialized health care great or what?



- At least in Canada you get to keep
- your life savings if you get sick.



I am a Canadian with serious chronic health problems and I have much
more experience with the health system than I would like to have, I
have come close being a silent key several times, I am sure that there
are some who feel that is too bad that I was allowed to breed before my
medical problems became obvious. In the minds of some I suppose that I
have peed in the genetic pool.

I have never heard of a Canadian hospital shutting down because the
money did not last until fiscal year end. While there are some
weaknesses in our system such as delays in elective procedures but when
the sand was running out of the hour glass there was always a system to
help me out. Here everyone can get insured, there is an option to opt
out of medicare but who would?

Think of the overhead that American doctors face having to deal with
multiple insurance companies, each with different forms and procedures.
Think of the people who can't get medical insurance no matter what the
cost. Think of those who don't have because they can't afford it. And
then there are those who exercise their right not have it.

In a situation where people get treated but can't afford to pay, the
rates for everyone else must go up to compensate.

Canada is not perfect but it is a pretty nice place to live and we try
to contribute as best we can.

By the way, if I were an American I would vote republican but I am not a
single issue voter so don't construe that to mean that I from the far
right wing. Consider me a fiscal conservative with a social conscience.



Interestingly, my wife is also a Canadian, she moved down here to the US
just before we got married. She worked only part time in Canada.
Aparantly, the health care is NOT universal, as many meds she needed she
had to pay for out of her own pocket, and had to wait months for an MRI
(She just had one here on one weeks notice). Yup, there are issues here
too, but the Canadian system is far from perfect either.


There are delays I will admit that. Universal means that everyone can
participate it, it does not mean that it covers everything. I also have
private insurance to cover drugs, dentistry, the surcharge for private
hosptital rooms etc. I guess that I got really ticked off when the guy
said that hospitals routinely close because they run out of money, that
was bull and it really ticked me off. Please excuse my sensitivity.

Paul

--
Paul S. Hinman - VE6LDS
long West 113 deg 27 min 20 sec
lat North 53 deg 27 min 3 sec
Maidenhead Locator DO33gk