On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:38:24 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:55:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:55:48 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.

And pixels show emotion?

This is an strawman. You know full well what I mean.

Since I can fully communicate using "emotionless beeps", no.

In the other thread, I explained how your beeps are just a trade of
raw data.

I'll tell my daughter's occupational therapist to quit using a monitor
screen to teach her how to recognize emotions of people's faces
pictured on the screen. After all, I have just been told that you
can't view a persons mood by the look on his face if it is composed of
pixels on a screen.

No you haven't, but you're being told that if you're not being
deliberately facetious, you're appearing to be pretty stupid.

You're the one who used the term pixels like they are just an exchange
of raw data. Technically, the are. But they are much more than the sum
of their parts.

When you actually get into high school, let us know.

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

You are wrong.

Your arguments are based on a
false premise that I and other want to ban the use of CW or that it is
useless.

The original discussion was about requiring it, not banning it. My
attention span's not that short.

We're only opposed to it being required to pass a test.

So be opposed to testing altogether. Oh, there's already a way to get
on the air without a test. You just don't like that way. Now that's
being childish.

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.
Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

I question those who say it's as good as a human voice.

How can you question a language you don't even begin to understand?

I have already pointed out that you can get much information beyond
just data. And, no matter what you say, beeps are just data.

It isn't and you can't say otherwise.

Sure I can - I understand and use it - you don't, so you can't
intelligently discuss what it is or isn't at all.

Keep on using it then. But don't tell me that I must know it in order
to use my voice on the radio.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
Since I can fully communicate using "emotionless beeps", no.

In the other thread, I explained how your beeps are just a trade of
raw data.

So is speech. So is writing. Communication between beings is raw
data. It only conveys meaning to those who understand it.

I'll tell my daughter's occupational therapist to quit using a monitor
screen to teach her how to recognize emotions of people's faces
pictured on the screen. After all, I have just been told that you
can't view a persons mood by the look on his face if it is composed of
pixels on a screen.

No you haven't, but you're being told that if you're not being
deliberately facetious, you're appearing to be pretty stupid.

You're the one who used the term pixels like they are just an exchange
of raw data.

All communication is the exchange of raw data.

When you actually get into high school, let us know.

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

You are wrong.

I would have been ... if you hadn't been acting childish.

We're only opposed to it being required to pass a test.

So be opposed to testing altogether. Oh, there's already a way to get
on the air without a test. You just don't like that way. Now that's
being childish.

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code. Many people can't
see any merit in knowing the laws or in having any technical
knowledge, so why not eliminate testing altogether?

Because you want your views to determine what's done. No other cogent
reason.

Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

Yes, it is. They want everything done the way they want it - just
like you.

You want to get on the air code-free, use the no code bands - CB. You
want to get on frequencies that allow code? Pass a code test. It's
not rocket science.

I question those who say it's as good as a human voice.

How can you question a language you don't even begin to understand?

I have already pointed out that you can get much information beyond
just data. And, no matter what you say, beeps are just data.

To you. Why should that matter to the FCC? As I said, you're not
qualified to discuss something you have absolutely no understanding of
- let alone make decisions about it for others.

Keep on using it then. But don't tell me that I must know it in order
to use my voice on the radio.

You can use your voice on voice bands - called CB. That's what CB is
for - communications for those who don't want to pass a ham test
(which includes CW). Like you.

From: Al Klein on Sun, Oct 1 2006 3:25 pm

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly:

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code.

No, there are thousands and thousands of us who want to
eliminate the US amateur radio code test for any
license. It isn't confined to Jim-"Opus".

Go read ALL the comments to last year's NPRM from the
FCC. I did. Can you?

If you look real close you will see that the FCC doesn't
think that the code test is necessary for their needs
in determining which amateur applicant should get a
license. It didn't in 1990, it didn't in 1998, it
didn't in 2004.

The rewrite of Radio Regulation S25 at WRC-03 eliminated
the international need for all administrations to test for
radiotelegraphy for privileges below 30 MHz. It is
optional to include or exclude by all administrations.
The International Amateur Radio Union wanted that rewrite.
The ARRL did NOT. The IARU won.

Many people can't
see any merit in knowing the laws or in having any technical
knowledge, so why not eliminate testing altogether?

Illogical, incosistent reasoning. The discussion is about
the radiotelegraphy test, a stand-alone test solely for
manual radiotelegraphy. It is NOT about the written test
elements so why mention them? [rhetorical question]

You MUST mention the writtens as somehow "related" but
it never was. It's a common ploy by pro-coders but
still irrelevant.

Because you want your views to determine what's done. No other cogent
reason.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Insulting insinuation there. Bad form.

Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

Yes, it is. They want everything done the way they want it - just
like you.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, more insulting insinuation of alleged
"bad conduct." :-)

You want to get on the air code-free, use the no code bands - CB.

There is only one "CB band." It requires NO TEST at
all. Never has. :-)

You want to get on frequencies that allow code?

I've been on many, many "frequencies" that didn't require
radiotelegraphy, either in use or to obtain a license to
operate. Got one of those licenses in 1956.

Pass a code test. It's not rocket science.

It's unnecessary and certainly NOT a "science." :-)

The only agency in the USA that grants amateur radio
licenses is the FCC and they don't think the code test
proves anything to them insofar as granting any amateur
radio license.

Why should that matter to the FCC?

Ahem, the FCC is the ONLY agency that grants amateur radio
licenses in the USA.

As I said, you're not
qualified to discuss something you have absolutely no understanding of
- let alone make decisions about it for others.

Klein, you are now violating the general to-be rules of
moderation.

Jim-"Opus" is a Canadian. He is licensed under the jurisdiction
of Industry Canada, NOT the FCC. That is his ONLY "qualification
for exemption" in any discussions about what the FCC does or may
do.

YOU, on the other hand, NOT being IN the FCC, cannot legally
"make decisions about (the code test) it for others." That
decision is up the FCC.

What YOU seem to want to do is force everyone current and
future to take that code test...because you had to take a
code test...and you want to "get even." :-)


You can use your voice on voice bands - called CB.

Incorrect. There is the Maritime Radio Service. There is the
Aeronautical Radio Service. There is the Private Land Mobile
Radio Service. There is the little Citizens Band Radio
Service. All have bands below 30 MHz and all allow voice.
[I've been on all of them] It isn't restricted to just CB.

That's what CB is
for - communications for those who don't want to pass a ham test
(which includes CW). Like you.

Now, now, lets not get testy there old timer. Citizens Band
Radio Service was established in the USA in 1958, 46 years
ago...as a general-purpose, short-range communications band
that would suit the general citizenry. It required NO test
whatsoever back then, still doesn't require any test. CB
has changed, enlarged in the following 46 years and the
number of users outnumber all licensed USA radio amateurs by
at least 4:1. [with no licensing for decades, only gross
numbers of unsers are possible through sales records such
as EIA reports]

I believe that Canada has their own CB. Many countries do.
That is irrelevant to the retention or elimination to the
radiotelegraphy test for USA radio amateurs.

Now be nice and behave in here or the moderator team to be
might make you sit in the corner.

Shalom,

wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Oct 1 2006 3:25 pm

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly:

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code.

No, there are thousands and thousands of us who want to
eliminate the US amateur radio code test for any
license. It isn't confined to Jim-"Opus".

Funny. I haven't followed this thread, but "Opus" would be a screen
name that Jim would choose. I'll have to go read this "Opus" character.

On 1 Oct 2006 18:17:52 -0700, spake
thusly:


wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Oct 1 2006 3:25 pm

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly:

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code.

No, there are thousands and thousands of us who want to
eliminate the US amateur radio code test for any
license. It isn't confined to Jim-"Opus".

Funny. I haven't followed this thread, but "Opus" would be a screen
name that Jim would choose. I'll have to go read this "Opus" character.

Oh I am just your ordinary, average insecure penguin.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

Opus- wrote:
On 1 Oct 2006 18:17:52 -0700, spake
thusly:


wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Oct 1 2006 3:25 pm

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly:

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code.

No, there are thousands and thousands of us who want to
eliminate the US amateur radio code test for any
license. It isn't confined to Jim-"Opus".

Funny. I haven't followed this thread, but "Opus" would be a screen
name that Jim would choose. I'll have to go read this "Opus" character.

Oh I am just your ordinary, average insecure penguin.

Archived.

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

BWHAHAHAHAHA a retard begeting a retard! BWHAHAHAHA!


"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Mad magazine is about the extent of your literary tastses, Penquin boy?

On 3 Oct 2006 04:39:27 -0700, "Andy the Perv Timberlake"
spake thusly:

snip the usual stupidity

plonk
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, pretending to be "Andy the Perv Timberlake" wrote:

Mad magazine is about the extent of your literary tastses, Penquin boy?

"Tastses", is it, Rog?

Dave K8MN