"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

"Actually, what is being discussed is freedom of choice of modes
in a hobby in a free society. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting
someone who wants to take full advantage of CW's many
advantages from becoming skillful in the mode."
--- CAM in RRAP

Extended to all modes? Get rid of those darn satellite mode questions on the
tests! I personally have no use for that!


Good point, and I agree. If we are going to have incredibly difficult
satellite questions on the Extra written exam, like the following verbatim
example.....

Q: Which of the following types of communications may space stations
transmit?

A. Automatic retransmission of signals from Earth stations and other space
stations
B. One-way communications
C. Telemetry consisting of specially coded messages
D. All of these choices are correct

.....then there ought to be similarly incredibly difficult CW questions on
the Extra written exam, like:

Q: Which of the following alphanumeric characters corresponds to the Morse
sound "di-dah"

A. A
B. B
C. C
D. All of these choices are correct

After all, fair is fair, and the CW mode ought to have test questions just
like all other modes. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll bet you like those schools where the students determine the curriculum!

Not at all Mike. You've persuaded me that there ought to be test questions for
Morse just like there are test questions for each other mode. We seem to be in
complete agreement on the matter.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Dee Flint wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

cl wrote:



[snip]

I disagree. It took a great effort.


What is a great effort? Many times it is a matter of perspective.
In other
words what we expect versus reality may make something seem like a
"great
effort."

It took a big bite out of my life when I should have been paying
attention to other things. But I wanted it, so...

For some - it may! One argument I've heard, is that those
musically
inclined
pick it up quicker than others, yet I knew some who "were"
musically
inclined and claimed to have a hell of a time with it. Reason? I
don't know.
I can't get inside their head.

Steve can. He can even have them incarcerated with a simple phone
calls.

The biggest problem with most is "laziness".

Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could
have
learned the code in under a week?

Eh - I had the code down in 2 weeks for the Novice exam. AND I'm
now
an
Extra. Been licensed since the early 80s.
Yeah, I probably could have learned it in under a week, if I
pushed
myself.

That wasn't my point. My point is that everyone is different, and
the
length of time it takes to learn 5WPM varies greatly. The time it
takes to learn 20WPM could be lifetimes. Not everyone is even
capable
of 13WPM.


Check out the book "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy." Basically
anyone
without a handicap can master 20wpm with the proper training tools if
they
are truly motivated to do so. Keep in mind that we all talk faster
than
that. We even talk faster than that when we spell out words
phonetically!

When the ARRL advocates telepathy, I'll pay attention. Communication
at the speed of thought!

Most anyone will tell you - it isn't good to do such. Besides, at
that time,
I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium.

I've been told that is absolutely no excuse. Nothing in your
personal
or professional life can be more important than learning the code.


No one has ever said that.

You're wrong. Larry Roll said that. Many of our regulars either
backed him up or were silent.

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...


When the ARRL advocates telepathy, I'll pay attention. Communication
at the speed of thought!


Start practicing now, Brian, 30 minutes a day, and you'll be up to 5 WPM in just
a few weeks!

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

We each must choose our activities based on our personal
priorities.

Thank you very much, Captain Obvious.

The "Miss Manners" agenda should be plied on Robeson, not wasted on me.

But do not whine and cry to change the requirements simply because
it's not
high enough on your priority list
to put some time into it.

I wouldn't characterize it as "whine and cry" (unless I wanted to
prejudice the
audience). Seems more like "this is my opinion on the matter".

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to study the theory either.

Is that kinda like when you told your child "if you haven't got room
for more
green beans, then you don't have room for dessert either"

"You can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat."

As you said, a person must get started to learn anything.
The first ones are difficult for all of us. Like anything else it
takes time
to get good.

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something,
learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is
full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant
without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
---Bokonon in "Cat's
Cradle"

"Actually, what is being discussed is freedom of choice of modes
in a hobby in a free society. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting
someone who wants to take full advantage of CW's many
advantages from becoming skillful in the mode."
--- CAM in RRAP

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Actual discussion on Morse Testing? Boy does that bring back memories!

bb

Mike Coslo wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


We each must choose our activities based on our personal
priorities.


Thank you very much, Captain Obvious.


But do not whine and cry to change the requirements simply because
it's not
high enough on your priority list
to put some time into it.


I wouldn't characterize it as "whine and cry" (unless I wanted to
prejudice the
audience). Seems more like "this is my opinion on the matter".


Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to study the theory either.


Is that kinda like when you told your child "if you haven't got
room for more
green beans, then you don't have room for dessert either"


As you said, a person must get started to learn anything.
The first ones are difficult for all of us. Like anything else it
takes time
to get good.


"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something,
learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is
full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant
without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
---Bokonon in "Cat's
Cradle"

Wow, talk about prejudicing the audience! This assumes that those of
us
who support Morse testing simply do it because we had to.

That is one conclusion.

With my
problems with it, that would make me the meanest SOB in the valley.

The actuarial tables got you a promotion.

Perhaps, just perhaps, some of us believe that it is a good idea
simply
because it is a good idea, a mode that cant be performed by picking
up a
mic and talking, or typing on a keyboard, and needs to be learned?

It the explaining of why it is a good idea where you run into trouble.

"Actually, what is being discussed is freedom of choice of modes
in a hobby in a free society. There is absolutely nothing
prohibiting
someone who wants to take full advantage of CW's many
advantages from becoming skillful in the mode."
--- CAM in RRAP

Extended to all modes? Get rid of those darn satellite mode
questions
on the tests! I personally have no use for that! For a strict
appliance
operator who is going to buy everything they use and have someone
else
install it? No one should have to do anything they don't want to do!
Ditch all those unneeded questions.

The Miccolis argument goes farther. He's advocated dropping all
requirements testing. Why don't you go over the deep end, too?

Sunuvagun!

Huzzanga!

- Mike KB3EIA -

You can add all the CW quesstions, within reason, that you want. Let
CW stand with the other modes in the written test. And drop the code
test.

K=D8HB wrote:

You probably get the drift.
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

Don't be so sure.

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


"Actually, what is being discussed is freedom of choice of modes
in a hobby in a free society. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting
someone who wants to take full advantage of CW's many
advantages from becoming skillful in the mode."
--- CAM in RRAP

Extended to all modes? Get rid of those darn satellite mode questions on the
tests! I personally have no use for that!


Good point, and I agree. If we are going to have incredibly difficult
satellite questions on the Extra written exam, like the following verbatim
example.....

Q: Which of the following types of communications may space stations
transmit?

A. Automatic retransmission of signals from Earth stations and other space
stations
B. One-way communications
C. Telemetry consisting of specially coded messages
D. All of these choices are correct

.....then there ought to be similarly incredibly difficult CW questions on
the Extra written exam, like:

Q: Which of the following alphanumeric characters corresponds to the Morse
sound "di-dah"

A. A
B. B
C. C
D. All of these choices are correct

After all, fair is fair, and the CW mode ought to have test questions just
like all other modes. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll bet you like those schools where the students determine the curriculum!


Not at all Mike. You've persuaded me that there ought to be test questions for
Morse just like there are test questions for each other mode. We seem to be in
complete agreement on the matter.

Ahh, appearing to agree with me to discount my point!

I could ace the entire test if asked is dih-dah meant "A". But that
isn't the point.

You did of course leave out my point that you can argue yourself out of
any testing via your argument......

such as....

Extended to all modes? Get rid of those darn satellite mode questions on the tests!
I personally have no use for that! For a strict appliance operator who is going
to buy everything they use and have someone else install it? No one should have
to do anything they don't want to do! Ditch all those unneeded questions.

0 question test.


- Mike KB3EIA -

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


When the ARRL advocates telepathy, I'll pay attention.
Communication
at the speed of thought!


Start practicing now, Brian, 30 minutes a day, and you'll be up to 5
WPM in just
a few weeks!
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

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

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
:

cl wrote:


which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only
takes a
few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass
a
test.

Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed
test
to get
to 5 wpm.

I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to
show
some
understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people.

I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by
comparison to
a
lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid.

- Mike KB3EIA -

You have a good point Mike. I have seldom had any problems with
written
exams, but passing a Morse test was hell. Those of us who have had
trouble
learning Morse have taken a lot of abuse in this group.

Dee says otherwise.

You hit the nail on
the head when you said you wouldn't do the same if someone had
trouble with
the theory.

The only person I've given a hard time about the tests was Bruce/WA8ULX.

K4YZ wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

I've heard of some pretty wild times long before things were
"dumbed

down"!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, I've been meaning to ask. Are you still sore at me for not
giving your grief about the balloon project?

HEH! Now you confused me Brian. But seriously, that you *didn't*
give
me grief was duly noted!

I've been stressing over
Steve's label of "antagonist" for not giving you grief for some
time
now. I'm such a terrible person. Hi!

Ohh, you know how newsgroups are.....

I know how they are, Mike!

They're populated by people who don't have the intestinal
fortitude to sign their names to their posts and they make up
allegations to try and hide behind.

Lie #27.

You refer to billybeeper as "Brain" and as "Brian." Mike just referred
to billybeeper as "Brian."

You just need somehting to **** and moan about.

Phil Kane wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:16:07 -0700, bb wrote:

Phil Kane wrote:

AFRTS IS NOT Amateur Radio

Hi! Awesome! Can I borrow that sometime?

It's in the public domain. Knock yourself out.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Thanks, Phil. I'll juxtapose it with Steve's similar quote to
illustrate what a sane and what an insane person thinks.

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


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

Because you've memorized the answers.

dit dit

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

cl wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

Most of the computer programs let you select a pitch you like. Of
course
you would have to arrange with the VE team well in advance of the
test to
have one set up at that pitch for her testing.

Dee, not everyone has a ham-husband to tell them all of the
modifications that the VE may make to an examination


That's what you ask in here for! There are VEs in here, myself
included -
who can give guidance to those who ask.

cl

"Here" is all knowing.

Part 97 doesn't define Morse Code, but specifies that it is to be
tested at 5WPM. Part 97 is silent on Farnsworth Code. Part 97 doesn't
say that the VE's must accomodate variations in testing.

Why does a person have to ask RRAP when they should be able to read it
in the governing regulations???


Try reading Part 97.509 Section (h). It covers "administering the exam". I
think you'll find it DOES cover the fact that VEs must accommodate
handicapped applicants.

cl

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

Actually people who are not required to learn something at a basic level
too often bypass the activity altogether because they perceive it to be
harder than it is. Therein lies the loss.

I don't buy that line of reasoning at all.

I was never "required" to learn to set up a "Lindy Rig", but saw other
fishermen doing it and it looked like fun, so decided it must not be too
difficult, so I learned how.

I was never "required" to learn to swim, but saw other kids doing it and
it looked like fun, so decided it must not be too difficult, so I learned
how.

I was never "required" to learn how to kiss a girl, but saw Clark Gable
doing it, and it looked like great fun, so I decided it must not be too
difficult, so I learned how.

I was never "required" to learn Morse Code, but heard it on the Zenith and
was curious about those beeps and boops, so I learned how (a decade before
I decided to be a ham).

I was never "required" to learn RTTY, but saw other hams doing it, and it
looked interesting, so I decided it must not be too difficula, so I
learned how.

You probably get the drift.

73, de Hans, K0HB


But you left out all the things you chose not to do because it "didn't look
interesting" or because "it looked too hard."

Have you tried everything that you have seen others do? And on what basis
did you choose to try some things and not others? Simply because in your,
as yet inexperienced eyes in that arena, it looked interesting? Have you
never tried something because some one else with experience said you should
give it a try? Have you never had the experience of finding something to be
fun and interesting upon being required to do or coaxed to do something that
you thought you wouldn't like?

The real question is not so much the Morse code test per se but what is the
set of basics that all hams should be familiar with whether or not they
personally use that knowledge? Those things should be required whether or
not they are interesting or difficult.

By the way I happen to think that all should be required to learn to swim
whether or not they think they may use it. I happen to consider it a basic
skill in life that all should know.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"cl" wrote in message
o.verio.net...

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

cl wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

Most of the computer programs let you select a pitch you like. Of
course
you would have to arrange with the VE team well in advance of the
test to
have one set up at that pitch for her testing.

Dee, not everyone has a ham-husband to tell them all of the
modifications that the VE may make to an examination


That's what you ask in here for! There are VEs in here, myself
included -
who can give guidance to those who ask.

cl

"Here" is all knowing.

Part 97 doesn't define Morse Code, but specifies that it is to be
tested at 5WPM. Part 97 is silent on Farnsworth Code. Part 97 doesn't
say that the VE's must accomodate variations in testing.

Why does a person have to ask RRAP when they should be able to read it
in the governing regulations???


Try reading Part 97.509 Section (h). It covers "administering the exam". I
think you'll find it DOES cover the fact that VEs must accommodate
handicapped applicants.

cl

Ah, it is section (k) now........

(k) The administering VEs must accommodate an examinee whose physical
disabilities require a special examination procedure. The administering VEs
may require a physician's certification indicating the nature of the
disability before determining which, if any, special procedures must be
used.

cl

From: "K=D8=88B" on Wed,Apr 20 2005 3:51 pm

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

We each must choose our activities based on our personal priorities.

Thank you very much, Captain Obvious.

[...or Captain Oblivious...]

[may the aphorisms be with Dee, said Obe-wan...]

But do not whine and cry to change the requirements simply because
it's not
high enough on your priority list
to put some time into it.

I wouldn't characterize it as "whine and cry" (unless I wanted to
prejudice the
audience). Seems more like "this is my opinion on the matter".

Nahhhhh...some REALLY believe in their conditioning,
that morse code testing must ALWAYS be required as
"necessary" to operate transmitters below 30 MHz!

U.S. hams have always had code testing to get a
license...and they MUST always have such a test.
It's engraved on their synapses or something...

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to study the theory either.

Is that kinda like when you told your child "if you haven't got room
for more
green beans, then you don't have room for dessert either"

Sometimes the "mothering" bit gets extreme in here...


As you said, a person must get started to learn anything.
The first ones are difficult for all of us. Like anything else it
takes time
to get good.

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something,
learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is
full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant
without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
---Bokonon in "Cat's
Cradle"

...I'm beginning to appreciate that quote... :-)

The Righteous Wrath of the Deep Conditioned has
become the new fire and brimstone of the
morseatangelous.

"Actually, what is being discussed is freedom of choice of modes
in a hobby in a free society. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting
someone who wants to take full advantage of CW's many
advantages from becoming skillful in the mode."
--- CAM in RRAP

Bless Cecil Moore's heart! :-)

However, according to some of the Deep Conditioned in
here, amateur radio is a SERVICE! "Nowhere in the FCC
regulations do they [FCC] say it is a 'hobby'!" and
other Righteous Wrath of the True Believers (making
like they are the subject of 'Bokonon's' observation).

Sunuvagun!

Right! :-)

"Zere will be NO laughing in zis camp!" - Sessue
Hayakawa's line as the POW commandant in the film,
"Bridge on the River Quai."

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...



But you left out all the things you chose not to do because it "didn't look
interesting" or because "it looked too hard."


Of course! Especially that part about "didn't look interesting".

Have you tried everything that you have seen others do?

Nope. For instance, I never jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, and I've
never tried to jump a motorcycle over 13 burning school buses, and I've never
entered a pie eating contest, and I've never done a whole lot of other hobby
things that didn't appeal to me. Lifes to short to dance with hobbies I don't
like.

The use of Morse in amataur radio is entirely optional. All licensees, even
those not tested, are free to chose to use it (or not). While I'd be perfectly
happy to see written test questions about Morse, just as there are written test
questions about other modes, there is no longer any legitimite argument for a
skill demonstration, other than your "try it, you'll like it" argument.

The real question is not so much the Morse code test per se but what is the
set of basics that all hams should be familiar with whether or not they
personally use that knowledge? Those things should be required whether or not
they are interesting or difficult.

I agree entirely! Yes, I really do.

But "be familiar" and "demonstrate a skill" are not the same thing.

I am required (as I should be), for example, to "be familiar" with a wide
variety of subject matter to obtain an Extra class license, but only in the case
of Morse am I required to "demonstrate a skill". What's wrong with that
picture? Why shouldn't we be required to "demonstrate the skill of safely
measuring high voltage" or "demonstrate the skill of planning a good ground
system" or "demonstrate the skill of tracking down the source of a TVI problem".
All of those basic skills seem much more part of the "basic skill set" that all
hams should possess, more so than requiring a demonstration of skill in only ONE
of a growing list of communications methods and modes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


..... my point that you can argue yourself out of any testing via your
argument......


No you can't.

I fully support a Morse familiarity test. Cross my heart and hope to die!

I just don't support a "skill demonstration", unless you want to require a
"skill demonstration" of every knowledge area on the test, and deny licenses to
everyone who cannot demonstrate all required skills.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: "bb" on Wed,Apr 20 2005 5:28 pm

cl wrote:
"bb" wrote in message

That's what you ask in here for! There are VEs in here, myself
included -
who can give guidance to those who ask.

cl

"Here" is all knowing.

Oh YESSS do these hams KNOW things... :-)

Part 97 doesn't define Morse Code, but specifies that it is to be
tested at 5WPM. Part 97 is silent on Farnsworth Code. Part 97
doesn't
say that the VE's must accomodate variations in testing.

Mama Dee would simply say "It's GOOD for you..." and
withold dessert. :-)

Why does a person have to ask RRAP when they should be able to read it
in the governing regulations???

I'm curious about the same thing. I've gotten all
these "interpretations" on it...which are simply
RATIONALIZATIONS anywhere else.

Part 97 is one of the shortest Parts in Title 47 C.F.R.

But, above all, MORSE must SHINE as the A-number-1
thing to DO!

Strange. 52 years ago the Army didn't require me
to know any morsemanship to operate and maintain
high-power HF transmitters (a mere 3 dozen). No
license, either. A year ago, nobody required me
to possess any license to operate a privately-
owned HF SSB transceiver on a boat. NO morse
needed to operate legally below 30 MHz then.

But, the ARS (Archaic RadioTELEGRAPHY Society)
stoutly maintains that *ALL* MUST test for morse
in order to have the "qualifications" to operate
below 30 MHz! FEDERAL Test! It's the LAW!!!

It's always been done that way...CANNOT be
changed. [been told that]

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

I've heard some weird tales about how the Signal Corps
used Draconian methods to quickly pound Morse into
the heads of their WW2 radio ops.Stories about
eight-hours-per-day seven days per weeks drills for 2-4
weeks or some such, nasty punishments for those who
"didn't get it", etc. Have you ever heard any of these tales?

I think the operative word is "tale" (civilian "legend"). I don't go
back that
far,

I realize that but you were "in the business" not too long after WW2 so
I thought maybe you'd heard some "insider's war stories" from that era.


but seems to me a draftee kid who drew Signal Corps billet would
recognize
a cushy job when he saw it and such "motiviation" wouldn't be needed.

Maybe for those who knew what was up then. But a helluva lot of
conscipts are historically cluless no matter what era and want out at
any cost and WW2 days were desperate times.

.. . who knows . . ?

=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Dee Flint 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"!

dit dit

de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
Dee Flint 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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


By the way I happen to think that all should be required to learn to swim
whether or not they think they may use it. I happen to consider it a basic
skill in life that all should know.


That's interesting. I tend to be more libertarian (small "l"), leaving such
decisions up to the individual rather than a societal (government?) "all should
be required" mandate. While it's easy to make the argument that swimming is a
useful skill beyond it's recreational value (just as you might make a slightly
weaker argument that Morse is a useful beyond it's recreational value), society
really has no vested interest strong enough to dictate "all should be required"
to develop the skill of swimming. If they did, then the next layer of
busy-bodies would busy themselves deciding which swimming strokes ought to be
required, which section of the beach we'd be allowed to use (depending on our
tested swimming speed), and requiring that all non-swimmers live only in arid
locations like Arizona and New Mexico.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


..... my point that you can argue yourself out of any testing via your
argument......



No you can't.

Yes you can.

I fully support a Morse familiarity test. Cross my heart and hope to die!

I just don't support a "skill demonstration", unless you want to require a
"skill demonstration" of every knowledge area on the test, and deny licenses to
everyone who cannot demonstrate all required skills.


No other part of the testing is a skill. You can buy a Yeacomwood rig,
have other people set up your antenna and setup. You can talk into a
microphone, (assuming that people know to mash the PTT or adaptive
device that performs the same function) and it will "work". I can buy or
download and install the software that I use for PSK31. It's a major
stretch to consider that a skill. More like knowledge.

But CW is a different matter. You aren't going to read a book and sit
down at the key and start sending or receiving Morse. *Thst's* a skill.

Even with computer generated Morse and Receiving programs such as CWGet
(all which do s so-so job of the mode) it is a valuable skill which can
work with minimal equipment.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


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


How did "refined sugar" enter the conversation? Clearly you need to broaden
your culinary horizons!

Good luck on this one now!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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

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.

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

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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. 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.

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

a cushy job when he saw it and such "motiviation" wouldn't be needed.


Maybe for those who knew what was up then. But a helluva lot of
conscipts are historically cluless no matter what era and want out at
any cost and WW2 days were desperate times.


I had thought that WW2 was a popular war, in that most everyone
saw the need to do that war. Not like Vietnam, which seemed
to be a pointless quagmire, to be avoided at all costs.

"robert casey" wrote in message
link.net...

I had thought that WW2 was a popular war, in that most everyone
saw the need to do that war.

Every war is "popular" to a certain extent among those who aren't required to
attend.

It becomes markedly less popular among those whose attendance is involuntary.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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"?

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

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
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.

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

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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).

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

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. 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.

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



It's self preservation actually. I have a real weakness for sweets and
can't stand the artificial stuff so my best bet is to bypass the stuff.
That's why I never keep this stuff at home.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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


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


How did "refined sugar" enter the conversation? Clearly you need to broaden
your culinary horizons!

Tell me of your desserts?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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

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 -

K=D8HB 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. 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.

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

Or push back from the table a little earlier than usual before having a
photo taken in a flight suit.

K=D8HB 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 Dee would accomodate the disabled examinees for the Tower
Climbing pass/fail exam.

K=D8HB 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?