KØHB wrote:

Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up their
conservative minds with any such heresy.

I don't recall saying dessert was junk.


Besides, if you haven't time to learn
Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food. Clean up
those green beans too, before you go study your code.

I just finished up my dinner of Sausage and Green beans. Lots of green
beans. No dessert, and didn't miss it either. Might have bit of sugar
free gelatin later for a snack.


73, de Hans, K0HB
(My kids think I'm a real "mother"!)

I think you're ok...

- Mike KB3EIA -

K=D8HB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


I can already read Steve's mind at 20WPM. ;^)

Because you've memorized the answers.
=20
dit dit

From the entire Question Pool?

Phil Kane wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:31:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like
the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is
simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so
(sometimes I fail miserably).


As the old Ross Bagdasarian/Rosemary Cloony song of the late '40s
went: "C'mon a' my house, my house, I'm gonna' give you candy...."

That's why she's a specialist......the "store-bought" stuff can't
make it, and the sweetener used in most of those products (Sorbitol
or Manitol) is colloquialy known as "Laxitol".

Since the commercial sweetener Sucralose went "retail" under the
name of "Splenda" it's a lot easier to get the right taste.

Splenda isn't too bad at all. In fact, I've used the artificial
sweeteners for so long that I dislike the taste of "real" sugar. Leaves
a unpleasnt after taste.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Tell me of your desserts?



Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes.

Yup that works. Or my regular email addy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Tell me of your desserts?


Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Me too, PLEASE !! My husband is borderline diabetic so even if they don't
suit me, I can still make use of them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:


If you don't have room for good food then
you don't have room for junk.


Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe
you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"!


Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.


One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering
(she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing
it commercially).

Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat
and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of
what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the
crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not
suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round.

Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar.


Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets
around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda
like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat, potatoes,
and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes, gravy, and
meat!"

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:


If you don't have room for good food then
you don't have room for junk.


Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table!
Maybe
you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"!


Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.


One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake
catering
(she's taught that for years and at times has even made money
doing
it commercially).

Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low
fat
and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95%
of
what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires
the
crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do
not
suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round.

Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar.


Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some
sweets
around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters.
Kinda
like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat,
potatoes,
and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes,
gravy, and
meat!"

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In the Army chow halls, you're actually allowed to tell them to "hold
the gravy." Otherwise...

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...

KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

No other part of the testing is a skill.

My point EXACTLY, Mike.

While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of
those skills
is singled out for a required demonstration.

Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill
demonstration, it
would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to
use it on the
air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse
on the air
without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a
demonstration
before a license grant!

73, de Hans, K0HB

I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing
pass/fail skill exam?


Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, but
if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper
safety techniques of doing such a job, wherein "actual" "physical"
demonstration is not needed nor required. Given that - a wheel chair bound
person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing
becoming a major issue. There is a question or so relating to wearing a
"hard hat" when working "near" a tower in case someone drops a tool or other
item. So, there ya go. Perhaps you can consider that as a step in the
"tower" safety process. It would be only "questions" relating to such
things, what's the big deal about pass/fail? You either answer the question
correctly as you would be expected to with any other - or you don't!

We have to count the number of correct answers given and see it they add up
to a passing grade, if not - too bad! It won't matter if they're handicapped
or not. We can accommodate them as to taking the exam, we don't accommodate
them as to giving them the "answers".

cl

wrote in news:1114118689.984407.281600
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Hamguy" wrote in message
...

: http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689

That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement.

Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for
General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed
Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to
resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has
risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied.

All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be
out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will
obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and
the 18 restructuring petitions.

Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a
reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer.
Probably the end of 2005 before comments close.

This is based on what FCC has done in the past.

Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order.
Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to
fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become
effective - maybe end of 2006.

Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I
wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be
surprised if it were summer 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You're being a Jonah again, Jim.

Hello Alun,

I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah".

Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the whale
- aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"?

It means someone preaching doom


the announcement guesstimates all done within a year, i.e. by spring
'06.

So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005).

Sounds about right to me. Granted that the comments about what the FCC
might do (and the title of the post) were all the poster's own, and
not Hamwave's.

Exactly.

My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a
number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change the
rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure, over
21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the street
yet.

My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the code
test and rearrange some subbands around this time next year. That's
still much longer than I originally thought.

My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that the
code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet.

I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped Element
1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the rest.
They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would take
is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed thoroughly
back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the treaty.
Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such
verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure for
such changes.

Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and
comments.

Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what -
six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the Report
and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed.
That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months from
summer 2005 is spring 2007.

Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1114118689.984407.281600
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Hamguy" wrote in message
...

:
http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689

That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse
requirement.

Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for
General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for
renewed
Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to
resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has
risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied.

All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that
may be
out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will
obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003
and
the 18 restructuring petitions.

Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period,
then a
reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer.
Probably the end of 2005 before comments close.

This is based on what FCC has done in the past.

Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and
Order.
Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates
to
fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become
effective - maybe end of 2006.

Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I
wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be
surprised if it were summer 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You're being a Jonah again, Jim.

Hello Alun,

I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah".

Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the
whale
- aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"?

It means someone preaching doom


Well, I wasn't trying to do that!

But the way FCC has worked in the past, I wouldn't count on
fast changes. That's the reality of how the process works.

73 de Jim, N2EY



the announcement guesstimates all done within a year, i.e. by
spring
'06.

So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005).

Sounds about right to me. Granted that the comments about what the
FCC
might do (and the title of the post) were all the poster's own,
and
not Hamwave's.

Exactly.

My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a
number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change
the
rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure,
over
21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the
street
yet.

My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the
code
test and rearrange some subbands around this time next year.
That's
still much longer than I originally thought.

My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that
the
code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet.

I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped
Element
1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the
rest.
They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would
take
is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed
thoroughly
back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the
treaty.
Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such
verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure
for
such changes.

Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and
comments.

Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what -
six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the
Report
and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed.
That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months
from
summer 2005 is spring 2007.

Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not.

73 de Jim, N2EY