Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:


Actually, this could be read in another way:


There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

JJ wrote:


Keith wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:


Actually, this could be read in another way:



There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.


It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.


I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote:
Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:
Actually, this could be read in another way:

There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

But note HOW the privilege is defined. In this case, it's NOT defined as
simply holding "element 1 credit" like it's pre-2000 predecessor was. Other
license classes' privileges are based on license class, which is in turn based
on element credit. However, for the HF operation of Technician and Novice
licenses, the current regulation doesn't refer to element credit but instead
refers to the international requirement - which was just repealed (and replaced
with a statement that each country may decide for itself - but that makes it a
"national requirement" and choice, not an international one).

If the section privileges were based on "holding element 1 credit," then I
would agree that nothing has changed. However, that is clearly erroneous.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

I don't dispute that. However, the authority for HF operations of Technician
and Novice licenseholders isn't based on simply holding element credit like it
is for the other license classes.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:
Actually, this could be read in another way:

There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

Since I was "double quoted" in this, I'm not certain if that last comment was
directed back to me or just for Keith.

However, note that I recognize that there may be an unintended result of the
recent international event - and that is certainly a "new thought" for this
group. It also demonstrates that no body of law should refer to definitions
made in another body of law that one has no control over and expect things to
be the same if the referred-to law is changed when the referring law isn't.