jim wrote:

they should form a niche for the cw users and note it on the license
with an asterik or some sort of identifier. if people really want to use
cw then they can fly the badge...



They have one.. It's called being a General, Advanced, or Extra class
ARO.

-SSB

sideband wrote:
jim wrote:

they should form a niche for the cw users and note it on the license
with an asterik or some sort of identifier. if people really want to
use cw then they can fly the badge...


They have one.. It's called being a General, Advanced, or Extra class
ARO.

-SSB

But -all- are required to learn a mode of communication that many
have no interest in, to date. That may be changing. Do all General,
Advanced, or Extra class operators use CW?

I do, but rarely. I know others that haven't since they tested, and I
know yet others who recently got their tickets who only work CW and
digital modes.

The point is this: Why bitch, moan, and complain about it, especially
in a CB newsgroup, where CW has no real bearing? Whatever the
requirements to get a license become, there will still be CW ops out
there.

-SSB

Steveo wrote:

sideband wrote:

jim wrote:

they should form a niche for the cw users and note it on the license
with an asterik or some sort of identifier. if people really want to
use cw then they can fly the badge...


They have one.. It's called being a General, Advanced, or Extra class
ARO.

-SSB


But -all- are required to learn a mode of communication that many
have no interest in, to date. That may be changing. Do all General,
Advanced, or Extra class operators use CW?

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:52:07 GMT, "Hamguy" wrote:

Just because my Great Grandfather had to 'crank start' his car, we
should ALL have to learn how to do it prior to driving. And his wife had
to use a 'crank style' telephone, therefore we ALL should have to master
that technology PRIOR to using a cell-phone just because they did.
Additionally, we should ALL have to learn the computer language known as
'Basic' or 'Fortran' PRIOR to using a PC because I and so many others
had to learn it. And EVERYONE should be required to learn an antiquated
mode known as CW before they get on HF because some 18th century guy
invented it. Either catch-up with the times, or get the HELL out of the
way! Like it or not, CW is TOAST!

CW has been as good as dead for years. Only the delusional
or in many cases senile amateurs think that a CW requirement
can actually benefit amateur radio in the long run.

Some believe that a CW requirement is a good filter, but CW itself
is a backward step in time. A more current, and better filter would
be a higher technical test standard that would include the newer
technologies. It should not be a cake walk. If the argument is to
filter the undesirables then technical testing should be the filter
and should be repeated every few years for all current amateurs.

Only that way can you truly filter the undesirables. The drunks, the
sour old men, and the senile idiots that ruin amateur radio today.

P.S. I have no problem with voluntary CW use.

Post of the week!

On 01 Feb 2004 19:18:19 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:



I have no Idea what your talking about.


On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:09:11 -0500, Lou wrote:
Of course not, with that empty head of yours.

How did you get so old Bruce?
According to qrz.com you are 311 years old!!!
Born in 1698!!! Hahahaaa! No wonder your stupidity shows....

Old School wrote:
On 01 Feb 2004 19:18:19 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:



I have no Idea what your talking about.


On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:09:11 -0500, Lou wrote:
Of course not, with that empty head of yours.

How did you get so old Bruce?
According to qrz.com you are 311 years old!!!
Born in 1698!!! Hahahaaa! No wonder your stupidity shows....

Bruce is a real stuffy prick, and this no-code **** is eating
his belly out. lol

--
Plymouth Motorcycle:
http://www.allpar.com/history/plymouth/motorcycle.html

On 01 Feb 2004 22:07:53 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Old School wrote:
On 01 Feb 2004 19:18:19 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:



I have no Idea what your talking about.


On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:09:11 -0500, Lou wrote:
Of course not, with that empty head of yours.

How did you get so old Bruce?
According to qrz.com you are 311 years old!!!
Born in 1698!!! Hahahaaa! No wonder your stupidity shows....

Bruce is a real stuffy prick, and this no-code **** is eating
his belly out. lol

It sure is and him and a few other will be alone on HF

On 01 Feb 2004 21:10:22 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

People like Bruce
will be the cause of No Change.


I sure hope so.

Not Likely this time pal..

The ARRL said the same thing, just in a more hidden and polite way.

And the "CBRRL" will suffer for it.

Uh, Huh!!!!

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:19 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
news
On 01 Feb 2004 20:59:58 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Actually it is highly unlikely that it will go through as proposed. The
FCC
will consider this petition along with the 14 others and probably come
up
with something entirely different if history is any indicator.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee you are correct. One thing that will probably not make it is FREE
Handouts
for Techs to General

How is it FREE if everyone still has to study and pay for it? Are you
this dumb?

The ARRL has proposed an automatic upgrade from Tech to General with no
additional testing and no submission of forms. i.e. The FCC would simply
make a few keystrokes in the database to accomplish this. Since it requires
no effort, no test, no submittal of forms and no fee on the part of the
Technician, I'd say that qualifies as a free handout for the Technicians.
However, the FCC's history so far demonstrates that they will not go for
automatic upgrades so that part of the proposal has a high probability of
getting dumped.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If that is so, then how would the FCC handle streamlining the
licensing. It is the FCC that wants this. The ARRL is the body that
has thrown in the NO-CODE. Everyone is putting this onto the techs,
what about the Advanced Licensees that will have a free hand out (in
your words) to extra? No one is bitching at them!!! Its all comes down
to the CODE either way you look at it.

"Old School" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:19 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
news
On 01 Feb 2004 20:59:58 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Actually it is highly unlikely that it will go through as proposed.
The
FCC
will consider this petition along with the 14 others and probably
come
up
with something entirely different if history is any indicator.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee you are correct. One thing that will probably not make it is FREE
Handouts
for Techs to General

How is it FREE if everyone still has to study and pay for it? Are you
this dumb?

The ARRL has proposed an automatic upgrade from Tech to General with no
additional testing and no submission of forms. i.e. The FCC would simply
make a few keystrokes in the database to accomplish this. Since it
requires
no effort, no test, no submittal of forms and no fee on the part of the
Technician, I'd say that qualifies as a free handout for the Technicians.
However, the FCC's history so far demonstrates that they will not go for
automatic upgrades so that part of the proposal has a high probability of
getting dumped.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If that is so, then how would the FCC handle streamlining the
licensing. It is the FCC that wants this. The ARRL is the body that
has thrown in the NO-CODE. Everyone is putting this onto the techs,
what about the Advanced Licensees that will have a free hand out (in
your words) to extra? No one is bitching at them!!! Its all comes down
to the CODE either way you look at it.

A number of people ARE upset about the free upgrades proposed for the
Advanced also. There's no reason that they should get them. They can get
off their behinds and take the test. The focus is on the Techs not because
of the code but because there are so many more of them than Advanced
licensees and because the Techs generally have a lot less experience
overall.

The FCC did not solicit petitions or initiate an NPRM of their own. At this
time the FCC doesn't really care one way or the other about the code issue.
There were 14 petitions thrown into the hopper before the ARRLs, several of
which proposed no-code licensing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE