|
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 4, 8:02�pm, "
wrote: On Mar 4, 5:00?pm, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: ? ?[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...] Rip Van Deignan... ?overslept. The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000. Hence, "...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..." Should have said "...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..." Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to add. * *You don't get "gist," tweetie. *MyReplyto Comments was to * *YOUR Comments on FCC 98-143 and YOUR Comment was * *dated 1998. *Do you want a copy? *:-) * [it's still in the ECFS * *for 98-143] Yep, it is. It was filed by mail because Len couldn't get ECFS to work for him back then. Len did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all. Len only filed Reply Comments to KH6HZ's Comments - even though KH6HZ supported the NCI position on Morse Code testing. (That 1998 position was to eliminate all testing except the 5 wpm required to meet the old treaty, and to include a sunset clause that would automatically eliminate the 5 wpm test if/when the treaty no longer required it.) Why Len would use the FCC comment system to argue with someone who *supported* elimination of all Morse Code testing at the earliest possible date remains a mystery. Perhaps he could not control his actions.... Reply to Comments are *only* supposed to be rebuttals of others' comments. They are not supposed to include any subjects not already discussed - that's what Comments are for. Len did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all. Yet in Len's Reply Comments he proposed that the FCC add a new, arbitrary and completely unnecessary minimum age requirement of 14 years to the rules, so that no class of amateur radio license could be issued to anyone under that age. There has never been a minimum-age requirement for a US amateur radio license, and to date Len has not been able to come up with a single instance of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement. Jim, N2EY |
Marie A. Loses Her Head Again
On Mar 7, 3:47?am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:02?pm, " wrote: massive snip of OLD, ANCIENT Spite of Miccolis... There has never been a minimum-age requirement for a US amateur radio license, and to date Len has not been able to come up with a single instance of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement. Still trolling right along after 8 years, Jimmie? :-) Let's see...your line got bitten off years ago...your pole is broken...the reel is rusted shut...and your boat keeps taking on water...and the fish have moved on to another pond. "A River Runs Through It" A very big river starting 23 February 2007. Happy "phishing." :-) LA |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 5, 10:11 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] You run the risk of simpler questions being selected for that 50 question exam. It is easier. I said the material was combined. I did not say that the question pools were combined verbatim. Instead, a new question pool is/was developed that covers the combined material. The "simpler" versions of the questions aren't used. For example, the Tech test might ask a question such as what is the approximate length of a quarter wave vertical for the 10m band while the General test would have a question that is much more specific like what is the calculated length for a quarter wave vertical for 28.300. The question on the Tech test would have choices that would be enough different that you would not have to actually calculate the exact value. The question on the General test would have at least two of choices close enough together that you would have to calculate the value. Let us say they combined the Tech and General. The approximate question would never be considered for the new pool. Therefore there is no risk of getting "simpler" questions when the material is combined. Dee, N8UZE Dee, you really need to let it go... |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 7, 6:47 am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:02?pm, " wrote: On Mar 4, 5:00?pm, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: ? ?[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...] Rip Van Deignan... ?overslept. The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000. Hence, "...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..." Should have said "...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..." Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to add. ? ?You don't get "gist," tweetie. ?MyReplyto Comments was to ? ?YOUR Comments on FCC 98-143 and YOUR Comment was ? ?dated 1998. ?Do you want a copy? ?:-) ? [it's still in the ECFS ? ?for 98-143] Yep, it is. It was filed by mail because Len couldn't get ECFS to work for him back then. Len did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all. Len only filed Reply Comments to KH6HZ's Comments - even though KH6HZ supported the NCI position on Morse Code testing. (That 1998 position was to eliminate all testing except the 5 wpm required to meet the old treaty, and to include a sunset clause that would automatically eliminate the 5 wpm test if/when the treaty no longer required it.) Why Len would use the FCC comment system to argue with someone who *supported* elimination of all Morse Code testing at the earliest possible date remains a mystery. Perhaps he could not control his actions.... Reply to Comments are *only* supposed to be rebuttals of others' comments. They are not supposed to include any subjects not already discussed - that's what Comments are for. Len did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all. Yet in Len's Reply Comments he proposed that the FCC add a new, arbitrary and completely unnecessary minimum age requirement of 14 years to the rules, so that no class of amateur radio license could be issued to anyone under that age. There has never been a minimum-age requirement for a US amateur radio license, and to date Len has not been able to come up with a single instance of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement. Jim, N2EY- I'm going to have to re-evaluate NY whine. Them's some sour grapes. |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 5, 12:12 am, Thomas Horne wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message roups.com... On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator. Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class written exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level licenses. All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While some countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were others who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you were not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own. Dee, N8UZE Dee Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good thing for amateur radio. If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those lines. -- Tom Horne, KB3OPR/AG- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Lessee... The ARRL has on-line classes for EMCOM, Antennas, Propagation, Digital.... |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 5, 7:02 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"Thomas Horne" wrote in message nk.net... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator. Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class written exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level licenses. All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While some countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were others who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you were not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own. Dee, N8UZE Dee Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good thing for amateur radio. If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those lines. The European approach with one "extra" license class and compulsory classroom training is not such a bad idea for people who operate on HF. Can you imagine that we are now allowing kb9rqz to operate a linear amp whose plate voltage might be /= 3KV? Do you think kb9rqz is technically qualified to open an AL80-B and change the 3-500Z tube? What if he forgets (or doesn't know to) bleed the the DC bulk caps or even forgets to unplug it? When he electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license exam to blame. Perhaps linear amp usage should be restricted to extra class, or, we should apply the above stated European approach.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Plenty of Morse Code Tested Generals, Advanced, and Extras have had their health records closed by amplifiers and towers. And Mark has had 1,500W privs from the Get-Go. So what are you whining about now? |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 5, 7:06 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote: When he electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license exam to blame. Message volume in this newsgroup would drop by 99%. So, is that a 'bad thing'? Exactly why did you return to RRAP? |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 6, 1:48 am, "K4YZ" wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:25?pm, " wrote: ? ?The military is IN the business of DESTRUCTION at the ? ?very real fact of part of the military being destroyed in ? ?the process of doing "defense." ? Wrong again. The Armed Forces is in the business of defending the United States and implementing of US foreign policy, by force of arms if necessary. Even the most casual of reader of military teechnology knows that the current state of the art of that "business" is LIMITING that "destruction" (read that "collateral damage") at every possible level. Today's military can do far more tactically and strategically with far less damage than their forebearers did in World War 2. If you'd like, I can suggest a couple of sources of research for you to follow-up on so you can get future posts more accurate- sounding... Or....You can just go on pounding us with tons of windy arguments about how since the correspondents weren't really "there" when "it" happened, we can't possibly know what's going on.... Putz. Steve, K4YZ What would Robesin know of the armed forces? Perhaps he was reading a 1950's copy of "This is the Air Force..." |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 7, 9:45 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:06 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: When he electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license exam to blame. Message volume in this newsgroup would drop by 99%. So, is that a 'bad thing'? Exactly why did you return to RRAP? to help his buddy Robeson? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com