So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

KH6HZ wrote:
We know the FCC isn't
going to introduce any MORE license classes, the trend for the past 20?
years has been to REDUCE licensing requirements and make it easier for
anyone to get a ham license.

There may even come a time when all amateur radio operators
are created equal, existing within one amateur radio license
caste, without the no-code untouchable caste, finally a single
brotherhood of hams.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
We know the FCC isn't going to introduce any MORE license classes, the
trend for the past 20? years has been to REDUCE licensing requirements
and make it easier for anyone to get a ham license.

There may even come a time when all amateur radio operators
are created equal, existing within one amateur radio license
caste, without the no-code untouchable caste, finally a single
brotherhood of hams.

My gawd!

Peasants sitting with kings?

Blasphemy!

chuckle
JS

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in news:cGYlh.25$WW2.223285
@news.sisna.com:

wrote:
...
The big question is why Len is so interested in changing the rules of
amateur radio,
when he's not involved with amateur radio in any other way.

Perhaps it just bothers him that someone is having fun?


Now I'd say that must be a trick question, as certainly, on the surface,
it appears only a moron would ask such a thing!

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

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

JS


I must admit he could be annoyed at a load of Morse code operators
monopolising a chunk of phone spectrum. I always was too, but only because
I wanted to use that spectrum. He apparently doesn't want to use it, which
is a little harder to understand.

Tsk, tsk. My advocacy (in the last few years) has been (among
other political issues, all local) simply to end the morse code test
for an amateur radio license. The morsemen just don't understand
that and I neither pity nor "envy" them.

The morse code test has long been a political issue. Keeping it
defies all logic (except to the terminally brainwashed) in the whole
wider world of radio extending well beyond amateurism.

Now, last I looked, the US federal government will accept ANY
citizen's comments on ANY subject...including radio regulations.
The US federal government does not "require" some kind of
license in a particular radio service to "allow" comments to enter.
One can comment to the FCC on matters of Mass Media
(broadcast or wired interstate) without having to be IN those
communications services or be "licensed" in them. It should be
that way in regards to a hobby radio activity such as amateur
radio...but some in here object to that so strongly that they
continue to attack anyone not agreeing with their points of view.

BTW, Len, I have an EE degree and used to work in an EMC lab (EMC being
what most people call radio interference, approximately speaking). Some
people hear that and jump to the conclusion that I was in ham radio
enforcement, which makes me laugh, because I never was. I could just add
that I moved into the law, but the same people would probably think that I
was prosecuting interference cases (!) whereas in fact I am a patent agent.

You've mentioned that before in here and I respect that.

My point is that many hams are (or were) radio professionals, but not all
of us drop references to our professional experience when we are talking in
a group of hams, except where it's actually relevant to the discussion. I
have met a few people who claim they could never be hams because they have
professional experience in radio, but I have never understood that point of
view.

You've misjudged my point of view. I mention that I am (and
have been for a long time) a paid electronics engineer (i.e., a
"professional" in the generic sense of the term). It should,
but does not (to some) indicate where my opinions are coming
from. Nothing in that experience has led to any "hate of
amateurs" or any sort of bigotry against amateur radio. What
I *AM* against is the insular, fairy-tale sort of mindset, the one
rooted in a time decades past, where old-time amateur radio
"is" what radio is all about and that long-time amateurs are
"more expert" in radio (entire) than all others.

Get a licence and try 'slumming' on the ham bands, Len. You won't be the
only one, you know!

I do not regard "getting on" amateur radio as "slumming" or
any other derogatory term. Amateur radio is basically a hobby
endeavor involving radio and I think that all should have some
form of hobby (their time permitting). I will never regard
amateur radio as a form of modal-ethical lifestyle that rules
a life as some seem to do.

In the political battle of "pro-coders" versus no-code-test
advocates, the NCTA have "won." FCC 06-178 will soon
become law. What is seen in here now is a bunch of Sour
Grapes sippers, Whining all sorts of things...and tossing out
false charges of "motivation" and personal descriptions.

Sigh...the insular lifestylers of morsemanship in hamdom keep
venting their spleens in here, attacking all who do not conform to
Their desires. Once FCC 06-178 becomes law, I will drop
commentary on the code test in here. I've said that many times
before in here and now I've said it again. Watch this space for
the spleen-venters angrily spout off on my "motivations" again. :-)

I have to admit that retribution does indeed feel good. To those
rabid morsemen, I just "flip them the bird" and smile... :-)



Note: That "ieee.org" is a free forwarding alias for e-mail that I
can enjoy and not some "constant mention of professionalism."
:-)

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
The big question is why Len is so interested in changing the rules of
amateur radio,
when he's not involved with amateur radio in any other way.

Perhaps it just bothers him that someone is having fun?


Now I'd say that must be a trick question, as certainly, on the surface,
it appears only a moron would ask such a thing!

Jimmie is no "moron." Brainwashed by the ARRL, yes, but
otherwise no dummy.

Jimmie is clever. He makes his "charges" as "politely"
as possible yet are just another set of personal insults.
shrug

His kind have inhabited computer-modem comms since
ARPANET was created. I've seen his kind on computer-
modem comms in all varieties in the two decades plus
that I've done it.

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

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

On the contrary, I think children SHOULD have fun...when
they have free time to experience play.

I regard amateur radio as an ADULT activity that requires some
sense of responsibility, a responsibility that is not yet formed
in most children until the entrance to teen years. Children have
a whole lifetime to experience yet and cannot possibly know
enough about adult society to be a deciding part of it.

Jimmie is obstinate to a remarkable degree. He wants, desires,
may even have some form of orgasm in wishing to prolong a
seven-year-old suggestion I made to the FCC in 1999. :-)

Incredible. But, John, "you knew that," didn't you? :-)

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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! :)

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 ...

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?

Tsk...Jimmie doesn't like HIS gut busted. :-)

He is a morseman amateur extra...he "knows" what is "right"
and none may say nay to his godly words.

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?

It's a "secret" rule invoked by morsemen by some acting of
congress? :-)

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

Tsk, John, calling these Mighty Macho Morsemen "children!"

For penance you must say 50 Hail Hirams, go, sin no more!




Oh, that poor "bird." I keep flipping him so much to Jimmie...

Happy New Year! (Waiting for Michigan to trounce USC)

LA

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

" wrote in
ups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in
news:cGYlh.25$WW2.223285 @news.sisna.com:

wrote:
...
The big question is why Len is so interested in changing the rules
of amateur radio,
when he's not involved with amateur radio in any other way.

Perhaps it just bothers him that someone is having fun?


Now I'd say that must be a trick question, as certainly, on the
surface, it appears only a moron would ask such a thing!

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

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

JS


I must admit he could be annoyed at a load of Morse code operators
monopolising a chunk of phone spectrum. I always was too, but only
because I wanted to use that spectrum. He apparently doesn't want to
use it, which is a little harder to understand.

Tsk, tsk. My advocacy (in the last few years) has been (among
other political issues, all local) simply to end the morse code test
for an amateur radio license. The morsemen just don't understand
that and I neither pity nor "envy" them.

The morse code test has long been a political issue. Keeping it
defies all logic (except to the terminally brainwashed) in the whole
wider world of radio extending well beyond amateurism.

Now, last I looked, the US federal government will accept ANY
citizen's comments on ANY subject...including radio regulations.
The US federal government does not "require" some kind of
license in a particular radio service to "allow" comments to enter.
One can comment to the FCC on matters of Mass Media
(broadcast or wired interstate) without having to be IN those
communications services or be "licensed" in them. It should be
that way in regards to a hobby radio activity such as amateur
radio...but some in here object to that so strongly that they
continue to attack anyone not agreeing with their points of view.

BTW, Len, I have an EE degree and used to work in an EMC lab (EMC
being what most people call radio interference, approximately
speaking). Some people hear that and jump to the conclusion that I was
in ham radio enforcement, which makes me laugh, because I never was. I
could just add that I moved into the law, but the same people would
probably think that I was prosecuting interference cases (!) whereas
in fact I am a patent agent.

You've mentioned that before in here and I respect that.

My point is that many hams are (or were) radio professionals, but not
all of us drop references to our professional experience when we are
talking in a group of hams, except where it's actually relevant to the
discussion. I have met a few people who claim they could never be hams
because they have professional experience in radio, but I have never
understood that point of view.

You've misjudged my point of view. I mention that I am (and
have been for a long time) a paid electronics engineer (i.e., a
"professional" in the generic sense of the term). It should,
but does not (to some) indicate where my opinions are coming
from. Nothing in that experience has led to any "hate of
amateurs" or any sort of bigotry against amateur radio. What
I *AM* against is the insular, fairy-tale sort of mindset, the one
rooted in a time decades past, where old-time amateur radio
"is" what radio is all about and that long-time amateurs are
"more expert" in radio (entire) than all others.

Get a licence and try 'slumming' on the ham bands, Len. You won't be
the only one, you know!

I do not regard "getting on" amateur radio as "slumming" or
any other derogatory term. Amateur radio is basically a hobby
endeavor involving radio and I think that all should have some
form of hobby (their time permitting). I will never regard
amateur radio as a form of modal-ethical lifestyle that rules
a life as some seem to do.

In the political battle of "pro-coders" versus no-code-test
advocates, the NCTA have "won." FCC 06-178 will soon
become law. What is seen in here now is a bunch of Sour
Grapes sippers, Whining all sorts of things...and tossing out
false charges of "motivation" and personal descriptions.

Sigh...the insular lifestylers of morsemanship in hamdom keep
venting their spleens in here, attacking all who do not conform to
Their desires. Once FCC 06-178 becomes law, I will drop
commentary on the code test in here. I've said that many times
before in here and now I've said it again. Watch this space for
the spleen-venters angrily spout off on my "motivations" again. :-)

I have to admit that retribution does indeed feel good. To those
rabid morsemen, I just "flip them the bird" and smile... :-)



Note: That "ieee.org" is a free forwarding alias for e-mail that I
can enjoy and not some "constant mention of professionalism."
:-)


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

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. The only really valid issue
IMHO is safety from abuse by adults, and that is an issue with the Internet
and in many other situations. I don't think it's a reason to keep kids off
the air.

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.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
....
Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years
should be able to get any class of US amateur license, regardless of
their ability to pass the license tests.

There is some concern I have mulled over in my mind, about youngsters
getting a ticket too young. Until fairly recently, I thought it would
be great ...

It's been a great idea since licenses were required.

However, having seen quite a few individuals who might be of a "pedo
nature", now not only do I have a concern about youngsters with internet
access but also with a ham ticket!

Perhaps - but that was not Len's reason for wanting to ban
under-14-year-olds from
amateur radio.

As for your concern, consider this:

- Have there been *any* problems of that nature in amateur radio?

- If interested young people are banned from amateur radio, wouldn't
they
tend to gravitate more to the unlicensed services such as FRS/GMRS and
cb?
Wouldn't the anonymous nature of such radio service be a better venue
for problem-makers
than the callsign-using amateur radio service?

Seems to me the age-requirement thing is a solution in search of a
problem.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years should be able to get any class of US amateur
license, regardless of their ability to pass the license tests.

Len has a (small) point.

Not on the issue of age requirements for an amateur radio license..

Generally speaking, 14 year olds lack the knowledgebase to properly pass the
theory elements in higher license classes -- that is, without "memorization"
or "association" of the question pool contents.

That's not to say there are not child prodigies who can do it. Certainly,
I'm sure there are. However, if you took your average 10 or 12 year old and
tried to teach him/her algebra, geometry, etc... it simply isn't going to
happen.

Doesn't matter, for a number of reasons.

First, I disagree that 14 year olds generally "lack the knowledgebase"
- particularly current-day
14 year olds. Having seen the curriculum for the local school district,
the amateur radio exams aren't a problem.

Second, the mere fact of attaining a particular age does not mean the
person can learn algebra, geometry, etc., or has learned it.

Third, young people have been passing the exams for as long as they
existed. Way back in the days of essay exams and drawing diagrams
(1948), a local 9 year old got her Class B license in front of the
local FCC examiner. Granted, an above-average child - but should the
above average be prevented from doing things because everyone can't do
them? (I suggest the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut).

Fourth, and the big one: What problems in the amateur radio service
have resulted from the lack of an age requirement? Can you or anyone
else name even *one* enforcement action against a radio amateur younger
than 14 years that had anything to do with the youth of the licensee?

Heck, look at the age of the worst Part 97 offenders in recent history,
like Gerritsen.

Thus, the only real way such an individual -- again, generally
speaking -- can pass the theory examinations is thru a) fraud, b) rote
memorization, or c) associative learning of the questions to answers.

Except for a), what's the problem? FCC doesn't care how someone passes
the
exams as long as they don't cheat. Hams older than 14 have passed the
tests by
methods b) and c). If there's something wrong with the exam process, it
applies to
all ages.

How much of the written exam requires algebra and geometry, anyway?
Much of what
I see in the practice exams is regulations (memorization), operating
practices (more
memorization), basic theory (science and a little math).

What would be nice is, perhaps, a license class with very little theory,
mostly regulations, which younger generations could "step into" the hobby
with, gives them a broad spectrum of operating modes on limited frequencies,
and as they mature, they can upgrade into higher a higher license class.
Oops. That almost sounds like the novice license. We know the FCC isn't
going to introduce any MORE license classes, the trend for the past 20?
years has been to REDUCE licensing requirements and make it easier for
anyone to get a ham license.

So what's the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

From: "KH6HZ" on Mon, Jan 1 2007 8:40 am

Here's a direct, unedited, verbatim quote from
Michael P. Deignan made on Monday, January 1, 2006
showing a typical example of "courteous, logical
'debate'" from a code-tested amateur extra:

That's pretty much my mental image of Lennie. A senile old fart, rocking
in his corner rocking chair, who occasionally wipes the drool of his face,
plugs in his telephone to his 300 baud acoustic-coupler modem, and uses
his VT100 green-screen to spread hate and discontent.

Oh, my, Mikey forgot to include "wearing pampers" and
"dribbling pablum" as another morse maven from New
Jersey wrote... :-)

Tsk, "senility" hasn't yet set in, I have NO "rocking
chair" and only "drool" mentally seeing certain women
of great natural beauty. I can't remember ever using
a "VT100", only one of the early Tektronix smart
terminals and the last time I used an acoustic coupler
for a computer connection was in 1977 at Teledyne
Electronics in Newbury Park, CA. The first mainframe
CRT terminal I used was an RCA-manufactured model
(made in Van Nuys, CA) back in 1973. [the RCA
"Spectra 70" mainframe was made there although
I've never been a part of that work] I am rather
familiar with "green screens" since that CRT phosphor
has been common since I've been working in electronics
(since 1952). My wife has a rocking chair (antique)
but it is up at the northern house and was used by
our grandniece during nursing of her new baby boy.

My PC is a standard Hewlett-Packard box purchased almost
three years ago at Fry's Electronics in Burbank, CA, one
with modest clock rate (1.2 GHz) but with a 56K modem on
a plug-in. 40 GB HD, only 128 MB of RAM, with USB ports
as well as standard serial and parallel interface. The
monitor is a Samsung 712N LCD 17" flat screen that is
almost two years old (also purchased at Fry's). A recent
addition is an HP wireless keyboard and mouse (also from
Fry's, a giant supermarket of consumer electronics in
nearby Burbank). Note: The wireless mouse needs a new
set of batteries almost every month...supplied by a set
of NiMH batteries charged by an battery chargers
formerly used only for household tasks. :-(

The office in our dwelling (the southern house) has
"his and her" computer desks which I made in 1999 (six
foot long glued wooden countertops sold for kitchens,
with extra-wide keyboard shelves also made by me)
including AC power outlets and modular telephone jacks
at each "desk." Ample workspace. I've been a user of
WordPerfect since release 5.1 and now have release 8.
I have the full version of Adobe Acrobat and know how
to use all softwares in my computer. That includes
SPICE (a free download from Linear Technology) and my
own-written packages...and am beginning to write
programs directly for Windows using PowerBasic (MS
quit supporting FORTRAN years ago and their version 9
and up Windows don't support all DOS-level programs).
I've gotten a copy of (free) "JustBasic" and am trying
that out...looks easier to use.

While I don't have the stamina or agility of a twenty-
year-old now, my wife and I have not been pursuing (as
we once did) an active lifestyle. That is due to my
wife having undergone a successful hip joint
replacement procedure in August. While there were
(thankfully) no problems with that, the recovery
period is about a year according to her surgeon. The
scheduling of the surgery caused us to put off a trip
to the midwest for our 55th High School Class Reunion
(we went to the 50th in 2001, both of us being in
the same class). We did go to my wife's 50th Reunion
at Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin in 2005, driving
the whole way. Car is a modest 2005 Chevrolet Malibu
MAXX and I do most of the driving...still passing all
required written tests with no physical problems
preventing my holding a driving license.

MD

Tsk, you are neither licensed Medical Doctor nor live
in Maryland. :-)

So, as you see Alun, nothing has changed over the past 7 years, except the
email address he uses when he posts.

MUCH has changed! See FCC 06-178 announced on 15th
December! The USA has been attacked by kamikazi
muslim extremists (not just pro-coder olde fahrts),
Shrub sent the US off to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Amateur radio "restructuring" happened (R&O FCC
99-412 released 30 December 1999) and the amateur
radio licensee numbers have been slowly dropping.
Now, I admit to not taking advantage of the free
IEEE e-mail forwarding alias until a couple years
ago somewhat long after I became a Life Member.
My wife and I became "great grands" and joined
the HDTV generation, getting excellent digital TV
through Time-Warner cable service (subscriber box
has a Tivo-like recorder capable of recording two
programs at the same time for 20 hours maximum).
Two of the ardent morse mavens in this newsgroup
passed away and the ARRL staffers seem to avoid the
newsgroup now. You've missed a LOT!

Oh, and not to forget: Michael P. Deignan got his
MANY "club calls" taken away from him by the FCC!
Sunnuvagun! The "RF Commandos" were mustered out
of militant service? :-)

Mikey, I'll flip you something: The bird.

Byeeee...

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
Incredible. But, John, "you knew that," didn't you? :-)



Len:

Well, kinda ...

But, I have a much deeper understanding now ... grin

OK, we'll award you a PhD...the one for "piled higher and deeper!"

wink, nudge

LA

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
- Have there been *any* problems of that nature in amateur radio?
...

When you have seen that priests, school teachers, and gov't officials
have all had problems with child molesters in their ranks, logic demands
you attend to the fact they are here with us ...

IOW, no, you have no examples to report. Or rather more accurately: Not
yet.

Yes, they are here with us - and always have been. Look at the
decades of coverup in some cases.

The difference is that such things are getting open media attention
now,
where before they were a local scandal or covered up entirely.

The big question is this: Do we shut down everything that might turn
into a
problem? Close schools and extracurricular activities because of what a
teacher or coach might do?

Or do we use common sense in our dealings with each other, and impose
appropriate penalties on the violators?

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
The big question is why Len is so interested in changing the rules of
amateur radio,
when he's not involved with amateur radio in any other way.

Perhaps it just bothers him that someone is having fun?


Now I'd say that must be a trick question, as certainly, on the surface,
it appears only a moron would ask such a thing!

is no "moron." Brainwashed by the ARRL, yes, but
otherwise no dummy.

is clever. He makes his "charges" as "politely"
as possible yet are just another set of personal insults.
shrug

Len, you seem to regard any disagreement with your opinions as a
personal insult. You also seem to regard any correction of your
mistakes as a personal insult.

Show us where I have *really* insulted you as a person. For example,
have I ever
called you insulting nicknames rather than just "Len" or "Mr. Anderson"
or perhaps "Anderson"?

As for brainwashed - sorry, that's simply not true.

His kind have inhabited computer-modem comms since
ARPANET was created. I've seen his kind on computer-
modem comms in all varieties in the two decades plus
that I've done it.

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

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

On the contrary, I think children SHOULD have fun...when
they have free time to experience play.

Just as long as it's not in amateur radio.

I regard amateur radio as an ADULT activity

Why? FCC doesn't specify that in Part 97. Nor does any amateur
radio organization. Amateur radio is for all ages - as long as they
can meet the requirements and follow the rules.

that requires some
sense of responsibility, a responsibility that is not yet formed
in most children until the entrance to teen years.

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

And if young people haven't formed the responsibility, why
don't we see problems resulting from the lack of
an age requirement in the amateur radio service?

There has been mandatory licensing of amateur radio stations in the USA
since 1912 - 96 years! In all that time, and the hundreds of thousands
of
amateurs licensed, there has *never* been a minimum age requirement
for any class of amateur license. Some other countries like the UK and
Canada had age requirements but dropped them.

If licensee-responsibility problems were going to happen because
of the licensing of young radio amateurs, wouldn't we have seen them by
now?
Perhaps the 96 year experiment was flawed, somehow?

Here's a hint, Len: One of the ways responsibility is formed is by
being trusted
to meet a standard. An amateur radio license is one form of that.

Children have
a whole lifetime to experience yet and cannot possibly know
enough about adult society to be a deciding part of it.

How does being a radio amateur make a young person "a deciding part"
of "adult society"? Having an amateur license doesn't give young people
the right to vote, hold public office, or do anything special other
than
operate an amateur radio station.

Of course if someone is licensed at a young age, they may be influenced
to enter a technical or scientific career, as I was. Their amateur
radio
experience may count for something in the college admissions process,
too.
Why would we want to hinder those good things?

Perhaps the real explanation is that *you* can't deal with some things.
For
example, you probably don't like the idea of a young radio amateur
having
accomplished things you have not.

Or it may be something like this:

"I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters"
in what is a primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational
activity."
- Len Anderson


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

Whether my quotes of your postings are old or new is irrelevant. Your
reactions
show that you still think the same way as when you wrote them.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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!

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..... :)

Leo

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote:

First, I disagree that 14 year olds generally "lack the knowledgebase"
- particularly current-day 14 year olds. Having seen the curriculum for
the local school district, the amateur radio exams aren't a problem.

Algebra and geometry isn't taught until 9th grade. Trig not until 10th or
11th. Vectors possibly in 11th or 12th.

You must have a lot of 14 year olds graduating from high school.


Second, the mere fact of attaining a particular age does not mean the
person can learn algebra, geometry, etc., or has learned it.

True. It could mean that the child simply memorized or word-associated the
correct answers.

So what's the problem?

Ultimately, I have no real problem with hams under 14. I think it is a good
idea. However, I do think there are valid points from the other side of the
equation. However, I do not see the FCC addressing them in any way, so,
things in their current form are likely to remain the way they are, which is
fine IMO.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

KH6HZ wrote:
It could mean that the child simply memorized or word-associated the
correct answers.

That's what I did in the early 50's in order to pass
the Conditional exam. My lack of understanding drove
me into Electrical Engineering in college, not a bad
incentive.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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."

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." :-)

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.
Don't know if PBS carries it locally. Try "Midsomer
Murders" perhaps...the inspectors busy trying to catch
the evil-doers that killed off code-testing in US
amateur radio. :-)

Cordially yours,
Poirot and his leetle gray cells

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

" 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.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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,

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

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.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

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?


Normal bureaucratic lack of speed. It will probably show up in the Federal
Register around January 19th based on the past.

Dee, N8UZE

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

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?

The delay is purely administrative requirements (rules can't legally take
effect, except in the most
extraordinary, emergency cases, without due notice in the Federal Register.

There is always a backlog of things waiting to be published in the F.R.

That is all.

Carl - wk3c


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.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

From: on Mon, Jan 1 2007 8:28 am

John Smith I wrote:
Len don't give a chit about children having fun ...

Well, actually he does - and not in a positive way.

There's never been a minimum age requirement for a US amateur radio
license.

Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years
should be able to get any class of US amateur license, regardless of
their ability to pass the license tests.

That's not just from his postings here - he put such a proposal into
one of his official comments to FCC.

Oh, you poor thing...you just CAN'T LET GO of that
subject, can you? :-(

Actually, what I wrote in a Reply To Comments on NPRM
98-143 can be viewed in its entirety at the FCC website.

Instructions for anyone else:

Just go to www.fcc.gov and click on Search, then ECFS
(Electronic Comment Filing System). Click on Search at
the right again to get the standard form for searching.
In the upper right corner box enter 98-143. The ECFS
will search ALL of the documents (many of them) and
present a long list. To save time, just enter my
name (Leonard H. Anderson) OR enter date 13 January 1999.
That will bring up my Reply to Comments (on Comments
of "Michael P. Deignan, et al") in regards to the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making 98-143. [note the "et
al" following Mikey's name]

There are 14 pages in my Reply To Comments (page
numbers at the bottom), preceded by my cover letter
to the FCC, followed by an FCC notation (their page
16) that a "diskette was received" (the full electronic
system was not yet in place for January 1999).

On Page 12 of 14 is my suggestion on age
requirements which had its specific origin in the
ARRL Letter, Volume 17, Number 12, 20 March 1998.
In the middle of that reference (duly noted in a
footnote on my Page 12) is a darling story entitled
"Youngest Hams in the US?" The photo going with that
story has two charming FOUR YEAR OLDS, clad in their
Sunday finest, being hugged by a grandfatherly-
looking VE.

To anyone who wants to see for themselves, all they
need do is go to www.arrl.org, enter "youngest hams"
in the Search box, a short list will be presented,
then click on the Letter for 20 March 1998.

FOUR YEARS OLD! They supposedly "passed" their
written test...with all the English language
comprehension of FOUR YEARS OLD. Yeah, surrrre they
did. The VEs "passed them" didn't they? :-(

FOUR YEARS OLD!

That was in 1998. That was NINE YEARS AGO...
come February or March of this year.

My Reply To Comments on 98-143 was dated as received
on 13 January 1999. In a week from now that will be
EIGHT YEARS AGO!

That SINGLE comment page has been the only one that
garnered any comment...and that mostly the vilest
bile that the pro-coders could conceive. But, the
one with the continuing woodie on the subject is
Miccolis, James. He can't stop on that.

One can find out why. My ARBITRARY age limit on my
Reply To Comments was 14 years old (not exactly
arbitrary, it is one year after Bar Mitzvah).
Surprise, surprise, Gomer! Miccolis got his first
ham license at age 14!

Poor Jimmie, he done feel "personally insulted"
somehow from the age similarity. He got 'wounded'
in the Great Word War here. Tsk, tsk.

Every so often, there's a mention of some youngster who earned an
amateur radio license at a very early age. One such news item caused
Len to claim here that there must have been some kind of fraud at the
VE session, because he somehow knew that the youngsters pictured could
not have passed the license tests honestly.

Damn straight, Gomer! Those CHILDREN were FOUR
YEARS OLD. "Full English comprehension" to 4-year
olds? NO WAY. "Fraud?" You betcha. What kindly
grandfather could say no to such charming CHILDREN?

Yet those CHILDREN, having "passed" their license
test and receiving confirmation from the FCC, would
now be LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to transmit RF to anywhere
in the world...ALL BY THEMSELVES. Legal. No problems.

FOUR YEAR OLDS. There's not one damn thing in Part 97
saying that "adult supervision is required." In 1998
or now in 2007.

---

Hay, no problemo wiz me, senior. I'll just consider
that all legal US radio amateurs have the attitudes and
aspirations and skills of FOUR YEAR OLDS. The ARRL
proved it is okay...and we don't want to naysay the ARRL
do we? [they know what is good for ham radio...]

Oh, by the way, the ARRL used the term "HOBBY" in that
charming 1998 ARRL Letter. Gosh, its not the "national
service" or "service to the nation" that all the fantasy
livers want, is it? HOBBY. ARRL said so.

To Jimmie Miccolis: Put this OLD SUBJECT to rest, it's
been warmed up in here twice before and everyone else
has put it aside. Quit your transgender-wannabe Nun of
the Above act and DROP IT. Bring it up again and all you
will do is make others irritated. None of us care one
whit WHY you have such a woodie for bringing back old,
old, old subjects...but you consistently do that.

Now KMA, 4Q and the hearse you rode in on...

LA

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote:
From: on Mon, Jan 1 2007 8:28 am
John Smith I wrote:
Len don't give a chit about children having fun ...

Well, actually he does - and not in a positive way.

There's never been a minimum age requirement for a US amateur radio
license.

Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years
should be able to get any class of US amateur license, regardless of
their ability to pass the license tests.

That's not just from his postings here - he put such a proposal into
one of his official comments to FCC.

Oh, you poor thing...you just CAN'T LET GO of that
subject, can you? :-(

Actually, what I wrote in a Reply To Comments on NPRM
98-143 can be viewed in its entirety at the FCC website.

Instructions for anyone else:

Just go to www.fcc.gov and click on Search, then ECFS
(Electronic Comment Filing System). Click on Search at
the right again to get the standard form for searching.
In the upper right corner box enter 98-143. The ECFS
will search ALL of the documents (many of them) and
present a long list. To save time, just enter my
name (Leonard H. Anderson) OR enter date 13 January 1999.
That will bring up my Reply to Comments (on Comments
of "Michael P. Deignan, et al") in regards to the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making 98-143. [note the "et
al" following Mikey's name]

Or, he or she could use one of these links, and the PDF will
come right up:

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

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3


There are 14 pages in my Reply To Comments (page
numbers at the bottom), preceded by my cover letter
to the FCC, followed by an FCC notation (their page
16) that a "diskette was received" (the full electronic
system was not yet in place for January 1999).

Actually, ECFS was fully functional then. Thousands of comments were
filed
using it during that time period, mine included.

On Page 12 of 14 is my suggestion on age
requirements which had its specific origin in the
ARRL Letter, Volume 17, Number 12, 20 March 1998.
In the middle of that reference (duly noted in a
footnote on my Page 12) is a darling story entitled
"Youngest Hams in the US?" The photo going with that
story has two charming FOUR YEAR OLDS, clad in their
Sunday finest, being hugged by a grandfatherly-
looking VE.

To anyone who wants to see for themselves, all they
need do is go to www.arrl.org, enter "youngest hams"
in the Search box, a short list will be presented,
then click on the Letter for 20 March 1998.

Or just use this handy link:

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

FOUR YEARS OLD! They supposedly "passed" their
written test...with all the English language
comprehension of FOUR YEARS OLD. Yeah, surrrre they
did. The VEs "passed them" didn't they? :-(

Do you have *any* evidence of wrongdoing, Len? Do you know
any of the people involved?

FOUR YEARS OLD!

That's right. They passed the required exams at the age of four years
and an unknown number of months.

If someone actually reads the entire story, it becomes clear that the
four-year-olds
were part of a large extended family that places a high value on
education. Lots
of licensed amateurs in the family - none of whom were the VEs.

That was in 1998. That was NINE YEARS AGO...
come February or March of this year.

Yup. And according to the FCC database, they are both still licensed
amateurs.

Is there *any* evidence that they have caused any problems at all on
the amateur
bands?

My Reply To Comments on 98-143 was dated as received
on 13 January 1999. In a week from now that will be
EIGHT YEARS AGO!

That SINGLE comment page has been the only one that
garnered any comment...

Actually, the referenced page was in a Reply Comment. Reply Comments
are
not supposed to contain new ideas - they are only supposed to discuss
issues
that have already been raised.

The proper place to bring up new issues like an age requirement is in
Comments.
But the comment period had been closed for several weeks when Len sent
his
disk to the FCC. In fact, his Reply Comment was sent so late that any
attempt
to reply to it would have been after the deadline.

and that mostly the vilest
bile that the pro-coders could conceive.

Oddly enough, the age-requirement thing was brought to the attention of
RRAP
readers by K0HB. His posting can be viewed by using one of these handy
links:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/y2er8x

As for "vilest bile":


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr

Some choice quotes:

(begin quotes)

"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
My goodness..."choke off new entrants!" Herr Breakup wants to have an
amateur radio community of the future to be prepubescent children?!?!?"


"Let's hear it for the four year old Novices who have READ and
UNDERSTOOD
the written test elements and realize their responsibility in having a
license!!!"


"Let's hear it for the VEs who have PASSED those CHILDREN for the
FCC!!!
"...ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical
mass'"!!!!!"


"What, pray tell, does Herr Breakup think of the 170K+ Technician class

licensees added in nine years? Are they "real hams" or is Breakup being

a stuffed turkey about that class?"


"Herr Breakup seems to need his Jugend to
satisfy His concept of keeping the traditions, legends, and myth of
amateur
radio forever."

"Ah yes, the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa
MUST
make his SUPERIORITY known! Four year olds who can beep (along with
parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are considered
"superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!"


"LOSE SOME WEIGHT! You are getting downright pudgy and
scowling too much. I'll bet those jackboots and arm band are really
tight?"

(end quotes)


Nice stuff, huh? Really adult, mature, civil discussion on the merits
of the issue, right? ;-)

One can find out why. My ARBITRARY age limit on my
Reply To Comments was 14 years old (not exactly
arbitrary, it is one year after Bar Mitzvah).

And two years after Bat Mitzvah. So what?

Surprise, surprise, Gomer!

Who is "Gomer"?

got his first ham license at age 14!

Well, you can't be talking about me - because I was first licensed as a
radio amateur
at age 13.

Every so often, there's a mention of some youngster who earned an
amateur radio license at a very early age. One such news item caused
Len to claim here that there must have been some kind of fraud at the
VE session, because he somehow knew that the youngsters pictured could
not have passed the license tests honestly.

Damn straight, Gomer! Those CHILDREN were FOUR
YEARS OLD. "Full English comprehension" to 4-year
olds? NO WAY.

So what?

The FCC does not require "Full English comprehension" in order to
pass the license exams. Just the ability to choose enough right
answers.

The written tests are all multiple choice, no more than 1 out of 4. Get

enough answers right and the test is passed.

As long as there's no cheating involved,
FCC doesn't care how much the person understands the material
covered by the licenses tests. Memorizing, word-association,
and just plain guessing are all allowed. There's no additional
penalty for a wrong guess, either.

Most of all, it doesn't matter to FCC how old the person being tested
is.

"Fraud?" You betcha.

That's a pretty serious claim, Len.

Do you have any evidence at all?

What kindly
grandfather could say no to such charming CHILDREN?

Any good one could, if the situation called for it. That's part of
what parenting is all about, Len - saying no when it's needed.

Yet those CHILDREN, having "passed" their license
test and receiving confirmation from the FCC, would
now be LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to transmit RF to anywhere
in the world...ALL BY THEMSELVES. Legal. No problems.

The FCC has no problem with it. There's no evidence of any problems
caused by it. What's *your* problem, Len?

Besides, you keep lecturing us that amateur radio is "a hobby". So how
much harm could a couple of four-year-olds do to "a hobby"?

FOUR YEAR OLDS. There's not one damn thing in Part 97
saying that "adult supervision is required." In 1998
or now in 2007.

And that's a good thing!

---

Hay, no problemo wiz me, senior. I'll just consider
that all legal US radio amateurs have the attitudes and
aspirations and skills of FOUR YEAR OLDS.

Why?

The ARRL
proved it is okay...and we don't want to naysay the ARRL
do we? [they know what is good for ham radio...]

Actually, the *FCC* is the licensing agency. They have accepted the
validity of those licenses for more than 8 years now.

If you look at FCC enforcement actions, you'll see that FCC has no
problem going after questionable VE activity. If you think there was
something wrong at that VE session, why haven't you presented your
evidence to FCC?

Oh, by the way, the ARRL used the term "HOBBY" in that
charming 1998 ARRL Letter. Gosh, its not the "national
service" or "service to the nation" that all the fantasy
livers want, is it? HOBBY. ARRL said so.

But according to you, Len, the ARRL is "brainwashing" us.

Besides, you keep lecturing us that amateur radio is "a hobby". So how
much harm could a couple of four-year-olds do to "a hobby"?

Put this OLD SUBJECT to rest, it's
been warmed up in here twice before and everyone else
has put it aside. Quit your transgender-wannabe Nun of
the Above act and DROP IT.

Are you telling others to SHUT UP, Len?

Bring it up again and all you
will do is make others irritated.

Who besides you gets irritated over this, Len?

And if it bothers you so much, why don't *you* "drop it"?

None of us care one
whit WHY you have such a woodie for bringing back old,
old, old subjects...but you consistently do that.

What's the statute of limitations, Len?

How old can a subject be and still be discussed?

Two years? One year?

What are your rules on that?

Or is something only "old" if you say it is?

Now KMA, 4Q and the hearse you rode in on...

Gee, that's really *mature*, Len. ;-) I think you need a time-out in
your quiet place...

And once more you've proved my point for me. Thanks!

You claimed that you were only interested in the elimination of the
Morse Code test,
but your Reply Comments and many postings here on this age-limit idea
shows
there's a lot more you want changed.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:43:26 -0500, Leo wrote:

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.....

indeed for once it seem Jim is ahead of the ARRL who will wait awhile
longer and prclaim they were behind NoCode all the time

....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 is an interesting one one that might have flown years ago here in
the US but the ProCoder wanted all or nothing

That was a bad bet. That was a real bad bet.

They're not used to being wrong.

So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool?
 

wrote:
On 8 Jan 2007 16:38:23 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:43:26 -0500, Leo wrote:

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.....

indeed for once it seem Jim is ahead of the ARRL who will wait awhile
longer and prclaim they were behind NoCode all the time

....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 is an interesting one one that might have flown years ago here in
the US but the ProCoder wanted all or nothing

That was a bad bet. That was a real bad bet.

They're not used to being wrong.

indeed and als unlikely to learn a lesson about ebing wrong

have to you seen the thread (at EHam) where someone is inisting th e
ARRL should sue the FCC claiming that the FCC is violating part 97 by
ending code testing and arguely how this is slam dunk (or words to
that effect)

Eham, huh? Better they trash that than RRAP. I just hope Eham is
moderated, unless they are Pro-Code. Then it's just more of the same.

the ProCoder lost and are accepting thier losses with less grace than
Al Gore or John Kerry

Kerry rolled over pretty quickly. It was that idiot from Tennessee
that couldn't take a hint.