wrote:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon, Jan 1 2007 10:32
pm

" wrote in
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in
wrote:

I think you misunderstand me, Len. All I'm saying is that there are quite a
few radio professionals who are also radio hams, and you ought to at least
give it a try.

I don't "misunderstand" much, Alun.

There seems to be a great deal of debate on that issue, Len.

My good friend Allan Walston (W6MJN), friend and former
group manager Jim Hall (KD6JG), and military service
comrade Gene Rosenbaum (N2JTV) have all been professionals
involved in radio. All are against the elimination of the
morse code test in US amateur radio but I do not hold that
against them. They are good people.

There are many good people who have come out against the elimination of
morse testing. You've frequently demonstrated that you hold it against
a fair number of them.

"Give it a try?" I've already done that as a "third party"
on amateur radio bands.

That's nice, Len. My parents have been on the telephone end of phone
patches. While they knew that the calls were being made by a radio
amateur, I'm sure that they never thought they were participating in
amateur radio.

Good grief, Alun, I really have
communicated by radio many times in the past fifty
years...and over more of the EM spectrum than is allocated
to US radio amateurs. I know how it works.

Amateur radio is not about "been there, done that, got the T-shirt",
Len. Neither is it a game of "I know how it works."

I've had to
"know" several different radio service protocols and have
no trouble adapting to any of them. Just what is it I am
supposed to "learn" in such "having fun?"

You don't have to learn anything, Len.

That's an honest question. I don't lack for human
companionship, friends or much else. Having once kept
many radio circuits operating 24/7, transmitting 'vital'
messages all day long, I don't regard "collecting brief,
momentary contacts" as "fun." If others like that, fine,
more power to them.

Many of us enjoy contacts lasting an hour or hours on a regular basis
with friends we've known for years.

Last I looked, 'operating' a radio
is not the end-all, be-all of amateur radio.

That's all the amateur radio license really permits us to do, Len. It
permits us to operate. You may listen all you like without any license
whatever. You may build a transmitter capable of transmitting high
power on the amateur bands. Without that license, you may not operate
it or test it.


As for the age limit thing, we used to have a lower limit of 14 in the UK,
but it was dropped completely and never missed.

I'm NOT into that "age thing." Almost 8 years ago my
particular Reply to Comment on FCC 98-143 had a
"suggestion" to that effect on the last of 14 pages
of text accepted by the FCC.

A "suggestion", huh?

If anyone wants to see the public record, they only
need go to the FCC ECFS and bring up the 13 Jan 99
Comments. In that they will find out that my
suggestion was THEN prompted by a (referenced) ARRL
news page wherein two 6-year-olds were shown in a
picture as "the youngest hams."

Right. Your "suggestion" still stands in the FCC records.

According to the FCC regulations then and now, any
licensed radio amateur can operate on permitted
bands BY THEMSELVES.

That's right--BY THEMSELVES.

There's NO law saying that
6-year-olds "must" have parental supervision when
doing so. They (the sixes) could legally send RF
anywhere in the world, all by themselves.

That's right; they could. How about that!

Way back about 7 years ago, I stated that CHILDREN
(specifically pointing to the six-year-olds) don't
have the RESPONSIBILITY nor the requisite wisdom
to behave properly in a largely-adult endeavor.

The FCC says they do have the RESPONSIBILITY, Len. The FCC issued them
a license. That indicates that the Commission believes that they have
the wisdom.

That hit a terrible sore point with all the morsers
who had (or cared for) children since, having passed
a high-rate code test, they were now PhD-equivalent
pediatric "experts." :-(

What qualifies you as a pediatric "expert", Len?

I've tried to let the matter drop...

You surely have. As long as you post here, it isn't going to happen any
more than your "sphincter post" about what is like to undergo an
artillery barrage (that you never went through) is going to go away.
Come to think of it, your posts about others dishonoring veterans aren't
going away in light of your post of the other day. You really are a
little weasel.

...but Miccolis MUST
try to bring that subject up again, and again, and
again. I suspect that I set an arbitrary age limit
of 14 and Miccolis got his first license at age 14.
See the connection?

You suspect that you set an arbitrary age of 14. I can confirm it for
you. You did it. I don't know if Jim MUST bring the subject up or if
he simply desires to bring it up. I know that if he ever drops it, I'll
gladly bring it up periodically. You've claimed to be all about
removing morse testing. Your words on instituting a minimum age for
licensing prove that your claim isn't true.

I let this age thing drop years ago...

Your words still stand in the public record.

...and won't pursue
it any more than I did almost 8 years ago.

That's awfully big of you, Len.

I am
getting annoyed that Miccolis keeps bringing it up
with supposed "motivations" that are impure or
immoral or somehow "against him." That's why he
gets the bird flipped at him...

It is evident that you don't like having your own words come back to
bite you. Those words are more evidence that your claims of only being
interested in the elimination of morse testing aren't true.


The only RL life case I know of involving ham radio was someone in an area
where I used to live who allegedly enticed local boys into his radio shack,
If you think about it, preventing them from having their own licences could
have made his station all the more interesting to them.

I'm not going to venture into this area. I have
NEVER done such a thing, have no desire to "entice
anyone" into my electronics workshop, office,
vehicle, or home for ANY immoral purposes. I have
a lovely wife, my high school sweetheart in fact,
and we've been together for longer than that
supposed moral perfidy that Miccolis keeps
crowing about, the one done almost 8 years ago on
the last page of 14 Comments submitted on 98-143.

Got that Alun? Got that Miccolis? Got that Heil?

Nice of you to bring me into the conversation, Anderson!

Good, now DROP that 8-year-old "subject" and quit
all trying to pin some kind of moral-ethical "rep" on
me.

You don't give orders here, Len.

I'm starting to get a bit ****ed off here.

Well you could Google up a guy named Anderson who posts here. He says
that not all are up to STRONG opinion on usenet. If you dig deeper, he
misidentifies how usenet got its start.

Try to control your emotions, Len.

Anyone who wants to pin some kind of "immorality"
rap on me can save up for legal fees (the billing
ain't cheap). I can afford legal billings. I can't
afford that kind of ROI "fun" to get a ham license.
It ain't worth THAT.

So, if I understand correctly, you'll sue us if we don't stop bringing
up your own words regarding the licensing of children? If I
misunderstood, please enlighten us as to the basis for your possible
legal action.


Alun, if you feel you've been "misunderstood," then
I would suggest you check your own syntax on what
you say in here. There be all sorts of trolls eager
to pop up from under their bridges, ready to talk
trash and nonsensical "charges" of perfidy here.
They will take the slightest thing out of context
and manufacture (indeed custom-make) something
entirely different than what was originally written.

Counsel him, Len.


Dave

Dave Heil wrote:
...

Dave:

I you have been given any real responsibilities, if you have a job which
could influence other peoples wants, desires, lives, finances, security
or well being, even if you just are a scout master--my gawd man, give it
up--the dangers are just too apparent

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
...

Dave:

I you have been given any real responsibilities, if you have a job which
could influence other peoples wants, desires, lives, finances, security
or well being, even if you just are a scout master--my gawd man, give it
up--the dangers are just too apparent

JS

Yeah, "I" should have been "If" in the above ...

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Well, CB John, it seems to have aroused some interest in you.


"CB John?" Hey, I kinda like the ring to that, it has potential,
thanks!

Potential? You're there.

I'd say Len would do little or nothing to hinder anyone from having
"fun."


Really? Looks like Len knows how to have fun to me, I can almost hear
him snickering now--perhaps just my imagination ...

Yessir, just look at how much snickering he's doing in his response to
Alun Palmer. He's having some apoplectic fun regarding his comments on
the licensing of children in amateur radio. Len's

I'm of the opinion that attending a social event where Len was present
would virtually guarantee an absence of fun. He has a gift.


Really? Darn, his dry wit makes me bust a gut often ... wonder how you
could miss that?

I caught some of it in his threatened legal action. The guy is a hoot!

Now, for instance, say they were hogging up all the radio freqs for a
good 'ole boys club, he'd be a ****ed as hell--and rightly so!

Len isn't involved in the use of amateur radio frequencies. How is it
his right to be upset? Len isn't a licensed radio amateur.


What does being an amateur radio operator have to do with deciding how
to use the peoples radio frequencies?

The people, under the FCC, have decided how to use radio frequencies.
In regard to the amateur bands, they are largely set through
international agreement.

That is all you are seeing. Len don't give a chit about children
having fun ...

That's incorrect, "John". Len has told us that he has a problem with
children participating in what he sees as an adult activity.


Now that is just plain false, misleading and outrageous...

Nope. It is a matter of public record.

...look at all the
fun Len has here--playing with the children!

Careful! He'll take legal action against you.

Dave K8MN

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
...

Dave:

I you have been given any real responsibilities,

I you think you could make it tougher by leaving out the material you're
responding to, you couldn't.

if you have a job which
could influence other peoples wants, desires, lives, finances, security
or well being, even if you just are a scout master--my gawd man, give it
up--the dangers are just too apparent

JS

Right, "John". I'm often prepared to act on advice from anonymous
usenet posters.

Dave K8MN

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon, Jan 1 2007 10:32
pm

" wrote in
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in
wrote:

I think you misunderstand me, Len. All I'm saying is that there are
quite a few radio professionals who are also radio hams, and you ought
to at least give it a try.

I don't "misunderstand" much, Alun.

My good friend Allan Walston (W6MJN), friend and former
group manager Jim Hall (KD6JG), and military service
comrade Gene Rosenbaum (N2JTV) have all been professionals
involved in radio. All are against the elimination of the
morse code test in US amateur radio but I do not hold that
against them. They are good people.

"Give it a try?" I've already done that as a "third party"
on amateur radio bands. Good grief, Alun, I really have
communicated by radio many times in the past fifty
years...and over more of the EM spectrum than is allocated
to US radio amateurs. I know how it works. I've had to
"know" several different radio service protocols and have
no trouble adapting to any of them. Just what is it I am
supposed to "learn" in such "having fun?"

That's an honest question. I don't lack for human
companionship, friends or much else. Having once kept
many radio circuits operating 24/7, transmitting 'vital'
messages all day long, I don't regard "collecting brief,
momentary contacts" as "fun." If others like that, fine,
more power to them. Last I looked, 'operating' a radio
is not the end-all, be-all of amateur radio.

I have been opposed to code testing for the last 35 years, but it's all
over bar the shouting.

As Yogi Berra was quoted as saying "It ain't over till
its over!"

The "fat lady" hasn't sung yet and the Federal Register
won't be issued until Wednesday. FCC 06-178 has been
announced but it is ONLY an announcement and not yet
law.

As for the age limit thing, we used to have a lower limit of 14 in the
UK, but it was dropped completely and never missed.

I'm NOT into that "age thing." Almost 8 years ago my
particular Reply to Comment on FCC 98-143 had a
"suggestion" to that effect on the last of 14 pages
of text accepted by the FCC.

If anyone wants to see the public record, they only
need go to the FCC ECFS and bring up the 13 Jan 99
Comments. In that they will find out that my
suggestion was THEN prompted by a (referenced) ARRL
news page wherein two 6-year-olds were shown in a
picture as "the youngest hams."

According to the FCC regulations then and now, any
licensed radio amateur can operate on permitted
bands BY THEMSELVES. There's NO law saying that
6-year-olds "must" have parental supervision when
doing so. They (the sixes) could legally send RF
anywhere in the world, all by themselves.

Way back about 7 years ago, I stated that CHILDREN
(specifically pointing to the six-year-olds) don't
have the RESPONSIBILITY nor the requisite wisdom
to behave properly in a largely-adult endeavor.
That hit a terrible sore point with all the morsers
who had (or cared for) children since, having passed
a high-rate code test, they were now PhD-equivalent
pediatric "experts." :-(

I've tried to let the matter drop but Miccolis MUST
try to bring that subject up again, and again, and
again. I suspect that I set an arbitrary age limit
of 14 and Miccolis got his first license at age 14.
See the connection?

I let this age thing drop years ago and won't pursue
it any more than I did almost 8 years ago. I am
getting annoyed that Miccolis keeps bringing it up
with supposed "motivations" that are impure or
immoral or somehow "against him." That's why he
gets the bird flipped at him...


The only RL life case I know of involving ham radio was someone in an
area where I used to live who allegedly enticed local boys into his
radio shack, If you think about it, preventing them from having their
own licences could have made his station all the more interesting to
them.

I'm not going to venture into this area. I have
NEVER done such a thing, have no desire to "entice
anyone" into my electronics workshop, office,
vehicle, or home for ANY immoral purposes. I have
a lovely wife, my high school sweetheart in fact,
and we've been together for longer than that
supposed moral perfidy that Miccolis keeps
crowing about, the one done almost 8 years ago on
the last page of 14 Comments submitted on 98-143.

Got that Alun? Got that Miccolis? Got that Heil?
Good, now DROP that 8-year-old "subject" and quit
all trying to pin some kind of moral-ethical "rep" on
me. I'm starting to get a bit ****ed off here.
Anyone who wants to pin some kind of "immorality"
rap on me can save up for legal fees (the billing
ain't cheap). I can afford legal billings. I can't
afford that kind of ROI "fun" to get a ham license.
It ain't worth THAT.

Alun, if you feel you've been "misunderstood," then
I would suggest you check your own syntax on what
you say in here. There be all sorts of trolls eager
to pop up from under their bridges, ready to talk
trash and nonsensical "charges" of perfidy here.
They will take the slightest thing out of context
and manufacture (indeed custom-make) something
entirely different than what was originally written.





I'm not suggesting anything about you, Len.

All I'm saying is that I've never heard of a case of a ham enticing
children over the air to abuse them, although I've heard of many similar
cases involving the Internet. That doesn't mean it's never happened, only
that I don't know of any cases.

On 2 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Tues, Jan 2 2007 3:06 pm

On 1 Jan 2007 18:03:36 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

Who are you to judge when a person is responsible enough?

...says the guy who is doing the same thing, by arguing the
counterpoint!

Ain't it something, though! :-)

Happy Holiday time to you, Leo, long time no "see."

Happy Holidays to you too, Len. It has been quite a while!

I've been reading the group occasionally, but there hasn't been much
useful communications rising above the psychotic rantings of the crazy
few for a long time.......until the code decision finally came down!
(and balooning season ended) ......

I would consider that the pro-coders in this newsgroup
consider themselves ultra-qualified for judgement. They
took the code-test here at maximum rate and are thus
supremely "qualified" to judge anything or anybody!
Those who haven't been federally tested for morse code
cognition skill are "untouchables," "always making
mistakes" and/or "always wrong." :-)

Well, our favourite representative pro coders on this group certainly
seem to! I see that our good friend Captain Arithmetic is busily
preparing to chart the demise of the ARS in the post-Morse apocalypse,
ham by ham. Somehow, he's changed his tune, though....used to be that
Morse would never be dropped - now, it appears that he knew it all the
time! A true visionary indeed.....

.....and, qualified they were, anyway. The new regs eliminate code
entirely from US Amateur licensing, leaving them 'qualified' in
something which no longer exists, from a licensing perspective. In
other words....useless as a 'status' indicator (as you will be able to
reach the coveted Extra level, for example, without knowing any Code
at all). Just like holding thousands of pesos in old Mexican
money....you ain't rich anymore!

Morse remains an option up here in Canada, for testing and
qualification for HF-band access. Either pass the Morse test, or
score an extra 10% above the pass mark on the written exam, and you're
on the air on HF. An interesting compromise!


It's like Inja doncha know?

Jeez, this group is like watching Coronation Street on TV.....you
could miss 15 consecutive years of the show, and pick right up where
you left off.....

Well, "Coronation Street" isn't a big thing down here.

Kinda figured that........kindly substitute "General Hospital", "As
The World Turns", or any other long-running soap with a recurrent plot
line.......

Don't know if PBS carries it locally.

Hopefully not!

Try "Midsomer
Murders" perhaps...the inspectors busy trying to catch
the evil-doers that killed off code-testing in US
amateur radio. :-)

I know who did it!!....it was the FCC, in the study......with a
vision....


Cordially yours,
Poirot and his leetle gray cells

Best Regards,

Leo

wrote:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon, Jan 1 2007 10:32
pm
" wrote in
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in
wrote:

I think you misunderstand me, Len. All I'm saying is that there are quite a
few radio professionals who are also radio hams, and you ought to at least
give it a try.

I don't "misunderstand" much, Alun.

Yes, you do, Len. You just don't understand what it is you don't
understand.

My good friend Allan Walston (W6MJN), friend and former
group manager Jim Hall (KD6JG), and military service
comrade Gene Rosenbaum (N2JTV) have all been professionals
involved in radio. All are against the elimination of the
morse code test in US amateur radio but I do not hold that
against them. They are good people.

Do you address them the way you address those here who disagree with
you?

"Give it a try?" I've already done that as a "third party"
on amateur radio bands.

Somebody else's radio, somebody else's license.

Good grief, Alun, I really have
communicated by radio many times in the past fifty
years...and over more of the EM spectrum than is allocated
to US radio amateurs.

But not with all the modes allowed to radio amateurs.

I know how it works. I've had to
"know" several different radio service protocols and have
no trouble adapting to any of them. Just what is it I am
supposed to "learn" in such "having fun?"

Then why are you so interested in the amateur radio regulations, Len?

That's an honest question. I don't lack for human
companionship, friends or much else.

That's nice.

Having once kept
many radio circuits operating 24/7, transmitting 'vital'
messages all day long,

Transmitting - not receiving. As part of a large team, too.

Did you control the content of the messages? Did you decide what
frequency, mode, or antenna to use?

I don't regard "collecting brief,
momentary contacts" as "fun."

Then don't do that. Amateur radio is about much more than contesting or
DXing.

If others like that, fine,
more power to them. Last I looked, 'operating' a radio
is not the end-all, be-all of amateur radio.

Actually, it is - because that's what the license is for. Anybody can
listen, anybody
can design/build/repair/align radio equipment without any license at
all. What requires
a license is transmitting from - operating - an amateur radio station.

I have been opposed to code testing for the last 35 years, but it's all
over bar the shouting.

Yep. In fact the shouting is over too - I don't think FCC would
entertain any
Petitions for Reconsideration.

As Yogi Berra was quoted as saying "It ain't over till
its over!"

The "fat lady" hasn't sung yet and the Federal Register
won't be issued until Wednesday. FCC 06-178 has been
announced but it is ONLY an announcement and not yet
law.

Two days of the Federal Register Volume 72 and no R&O in either. Maybe
today. I'm
keeping watch....

As for the age limit thing, we used to have a lower limit of 14 in the UK,
but it was dropped completely and never missed.

I'm NOT into that "age thing."

What does "NOT into that "age thing."" mean, Len?

Does it mean you admit you were wrong about it?

Or just that you don't want to hear about it any more, because it shows
you are
interested in far more than just eliminating Element 1?

Almost 8 years ago my
particular Reply to Comment on FCC 98-143 had a
"suggestion" to that effect on the last of 14 pages
of text accepted by the FCC.

All petitions, proposals, comments, reply comments and similar
communications to FCC are "suggestions" that FCC change the rules (or
not) to agree with what the "suggester" wants.

If anyone wants to see the public record, they only
need go to the FCC ECFS and bring up the 13 Jan 99
Comments.

No, the Reply Comments. You didn't file any Comments on 98-143, you
only filed a Reply Comment. I checked.

Here's a direct link:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6006041 560

In that they will find out that my
suggestion was THEN prompted by a (referenced) ARRL
news page wherein two 6-year-olds were shown in a
picture as "the youngest hams."

Actually, they were *four* years old at the time of being licensed.

The article, with picture, is he

http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/98/980320/

According to the FCC regulations then and now, any
licensed radio amateur can operate on permitted
bands BY THEMSELVES. There's NO law saying that
6-year-olds "must" have parental supervision when
doing so. They (the sixes) could legally send RF
anywhere in the world, all by themselves.

Why is that a problem, if the children in question can pass the license
exams?

Len assumes the parents and families of these children, all of whom are
licensed
radio amateurs, would not be responsible about their children's use of
radio unless
the LAW bans them from being licensed until a certain age.

Way back about 7 years ago, I stated that CHILDREN
(specifically pointing to the six-year-olds) don't
have the RESPONSIBILITY nor the requisite wisdom
to behave properly in a largely-adult endeavor.

It seems you still think that way.

FCC disagrees with you. And so do I. Is that wrong of us?

Your solution was to propose an age requirement of *14* years for *any*
class of amateur license. Not six years, not eight years, not some sort
of limited license or parental permission supervision thing, but a
complete ban on all licensing of people under 14 years of age
regardless of any other factors.

Do you still think an age requirement is a good idea, Len?

The key piece of missing information was how the lack of such an age
requirement has caused problems with the amateur radio service.

IOW, what Len proposed was a *new* and completely unnecessary
restriction on amateur radio licensing, based on nothing more than his
own idea that amateur radio is "an ADULT activity". He ignores the many
examples of responsible young people in amateur radio, and would ban
all under 14 from it.

That hit a terrible sore point with all the morsers
who had (or cared for) children since, having passed
a high-rate code test, they were now PhD-equivalent
pediatric "experts." :-(

Len's not a parent, nor a teacher, nor a child expert in any way. Nor
does he know the families in question. But he knows that the licensing
of anyone under 14 years old must be stopped, even after 96 years!

I've tried to let the matter drop but

MUST
try to bring that subject up again, and again, and
again.

Someone else claimed you weren't against children having fun. I
disproved that claim by bringing up some facts. Is that wrong?

I suspect that I set an arbitrary age lim
it
of 14 and

got his first license at age 14.
See the connection?

What connection?

I got my license at age 13, Len. No big deal - that wasn't anywhere
near a record even back then. I was on the air at that age,
unsupervised, sending radio signals all over the world. With a
transmitter I built myself, too!

All legal - no problems.

I let this age thing drop years ago and won't pursue
it any more than I did almost 8 years ago.

You still believe in it now, though, don't you? Your statements here
prove it.

I am
getting annoyed that

keeps bringing it up
with supposed "motivations" that are impure or
immoral or somehow "against him."

You're getting your attributions mixed up, Len. I don't say your
motivations
are "impure" or "immoral". In fact, I don't think anyone did.

I just say the whole age thing is a bad idea.

That's why he
gets the bird flipped at him...

For telling the truth and disagreeing with you.

btw, your age-requirement "suggestion" was made in a Reply Comment, not
a Comment. Reply Comments are not supposed to include new subjects -
they are only supposed to reply to the comments of others. Procedural
mistake, Len.

The only RL life case I know of involving ham radio was someone in an area
where I used to live who allegedly enticed local boys into his radio shack,
If you think about it, preventing them from having their own licences could
have made his station all the more interesting to them.

I'm not going to venture into this area. I have
NEVER done such a thing, have no desire to "entice
anyone" into my electronics workshop, office,
vehicle, or home for ANY immoral purposes.

Nobody's talking about *you* in that context, Len. If you think they
are, then you completely misunderstood what Alun (not me, not K8MN)
wrote.

I have
a lovely wife, my high school sweetheart in fact,
and we've been together for longer than that
supposed moral perfidy that

keeps
crowing about, the one done almost 8 years ago on
the last page of 14 Comments submitted on 98-143.

You mean the bad idea of an age requirement? That's just a bad idea.

Here's a fun fact: You didn't get an amateur radio license before age
14, either.

Got that Alun? Got that Miccolis? Got that Heil?

Got what? That you have a nice life?

How come you address Alun by his first name, but others by their last
names?

Good, now DROP that 8-year-old "subject" and quit
all trying to pin some kind of moral-ethical "rep" on
me.

Are you telling us to shut up? Sure sounds like it!

I'm starting to get a bit ****ed off here.

Why? Don't you like the give-and-take?

Alun, if you feel you've been "misunderstood," then
I would suggest you check your own syntax on what
you say in here. There be all sorts of trolls eager
to pop up from under their bridges, ready to talk
trash and nonsensical "charges" of perfidy here.
They will take the slightest thing out of context
and manufacture (indeed custom-make) something
entirely different than what was originally written.

You mean like when someone says I proposed a "no-test" amateur radio
service, but
cannot provide any evidence of it?

Len, is there a rule that says something cannot be discussed after a
certain amount of time?
What's the time limit - five years? Three years? One year? - beyond
which something is
too old to bring up again?

I'd really like to know.

On 2 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, " wrote:
From: Leo on Tues, Jan 2 2007 3:06 pm
On 1 Jan 2007 18:03:36 -0800, wrote:
wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

Who are you to judge when a person is responsible enough?

...says the guy who is doing the same thing, by arguing the
counterpoint!

Ain't it something, though! :-)

Happy Holiday time to you, Leo, long time no "see."

Happy Holidays to you too, Len. It has been quite a while!

I've been reading the group occasionally, but there hasn't been much
useful communications rising above the psychotic rantings of the crazy
few for a long time.......until the code decision finally came down!
(and balooning season ended) ......

Har! :-)

Well, I've been reassured that miracles indeed DO happen
down here! :-)

I would consider that the pro-coders in this newsgroup
consider themselves ultra-qualified for judgement. They
took the code-test here at maximum rate and are thus
supremely "qualified" to judge anything or anybody!
Those who haven't been federally tested for morse code
cognition skill are "untouchables," "always making
mistakes" and/or "always wrong." :-)

Well, our favourite representative pro coders on this group certainly
seem to!

Heh, I wouldn't call him either 'favourite' or 'favorite.'
Certainly a Prime Example. Prime, as in being non-
divisible by an integer...or NCTA. :-)

I see that our good friend Captain Arithmetic is busily
preparing to chart the demise of the ARS in the post-Morse apocalypse,
ham by ham. Somehow, he's changed his tune, though....used to be that
Morse would never be dropped - now, it appears that he knew it all the
time! A true visionary indeed.....

Morsemen have always self-defined themselves with 20/15
hindsight. In fact, "Captain Arithmetic" seems to do
little but look behind himself to the past.

....and, qualified they were, anyway. The new regs eliminate code
entirely from US Amateur licensing, leaving them 'qualified' in
something which no longer exists, from a licensing perspective. In
other words....useless as a 'status' indicator (as you will be able to
reach the coveted Extra level, for example, without knowing any Code
at all).

"Coveted Extra level?" I've never looked at that hobby
"title" as anything to covet. As for coveting TITLES,
there's plenty of fraternal orders I can think of with
fancier TITLES (plus costumes) one can "enjoy" with as
much cameraderie. No technical skill needed but still
with the same hazing that old-timers seem to think
necessary. :-)

Morse remains an option up here in Canada, for testing and
qualification for HF-band access. Either pass the Morse test, or
score an extra 10% above the pass mark on the written exam, and you're
on the air on HF. An interesting compromise!

I find that most interesting considering our nations'
pasts and traditions. Canadian leaders are somewhat
rejecting their past reliance on English traditions and
looking towards the future but not hesitant to use
compromises to bind old and new. Compromise isn't
(generally) considered a bad word up there. On the
other hand, Americans who once fought wars (two) to get
away from English rule, have become as covetous of TITLES
as any European. The independence of thought has become
a pejorative down here and one MUST "follow the party
(as in old royalty) line."

Operating any transmitter on HF takes no real skill
nor is any formal training involved with long periods of
practice. I first operated on HF 54 years ago come
February...with a couple hours of informal instruction.
No license required, no hazing prior to operation, just
do it as instructed. All the bitter recriminatory
arguing in here by the morsers is in the POLITICS of
AUTHORIZTION by a nation's ruling body. Morsers have
always confused authorization with 'qualification' but
that 'confusion' is only on the surface. They have been
deliberately mis-using words carrying some emotional
baggage in order to belittle the NCTA. [consider them
"closet hypocrites"]

I am in favor of Industry Canada's compromise in regards
to morse code testing. It should satisfy both the olde-
tyme morser's "my way or the highway" mentality and the
realism of today with a look to the future. A problem
down here is the outright beligerance of some of the US
morsemen adamantly INSISTING on keeping the old standards
and practices (with all old traditions and regulations
absolutely intact regardless of their quaint archaic
nature.

What I find amusing is the hypocrisy of "old" versus
"old." The beligerant morsers decry my "age" as being
unmeaningful and something to be discarded. Yet, those
same insistent beligerants want to steadfastly KEEP the
standards and practices in federal regulations that are
as old (and some older) than I am! :-)


Well, "Coronation Street" isn't a big thing down here.

Kinda figured that........kindly substitute "General Hospital", "As
The World Turns", or any other long-running soap with a recurrent plot
line.......

OK, understood. :-) [ugh...]


Try "Midsomer
Murders" perhaps...the inspectors busy trying to catch
the evil-doers that killed off code-testing in US
amateur radio. :-)

I know who did it!!....it was the FCC, in the study......with a
vision....

Oh...heck, Leo, now you've spoiled the ending for me!

Now I have to write a memo and cancel "DaVinci's Inquest"
[a good Canadian production in my opinion...but lacked
the afterburner-on effort of PR necessary to be a network
hit down here...a thank-you to my cable service for
running it on an independent channel!]

With our without our FCC finally bothering with amateur
radio regulation modernization, I'm not champing at the
bit (or slobbering in my 'rocking chair' in front of my
'green screen' terminal) to get an amateur radio hobby
license. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Don't need a
"title" to put in front or behind my name (as if it were
some 'royal' thing or Nobel-quality honorific).

Maybe I'll spend some time in Las Vegas at the CSI Lab,
to check out (forensically) "who dunnit." More fun
there outside of the lab. "Life's a gamble," isn't it?
Anyway, it's no "mystery" at all. The FCC announced it
is going to do it down here. They aren't "O.J." :-)

Cordially,

wrote:

Yep. In fact the shouting is over too - I don't think FCC would
entertain any
Petitions for Reconsideration.

Then what do your ham friends at the FCC say is the hold-up? Is a
national amateur radio organization involved in the hold-up?

As Yogi Berra was quoted as saying "It ain't over till
its over!"

The "fat lady" hasn't sung yet and the Federal Register
won't be issued until Wednesday. FCC 06-178 has been
announced but it is ONLY an announcement and not yet
law.

Two days of the Federal Register Volume 72 and no R&O in either. Maybe
today. I'm
keeping watch....

Best of Luck.