"William" wrote in message
om...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
. com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

. . . . . .

Those waivers effectively meant that nobody really had to go beyond
the 5 wpm
test to get a US ham license. All it took was a doctor's note from
*any* MD or
DO, and you could write the letter and get the doc to sign it. You
didn't need
a diagnosis of any particular problem, nor any sort of permanent
condition,
just a rather vague certification that for medical reasons it would be
harder
for you to pass the test than the average bloke.

Do you know of *anyone* who tried and couldn't get a waiver? Or *any*
doc who
was even questioned by FCC? I don't.

I don't even know anybody who got one of those waivers much less how
they pulled it off.

Interesting. Jim says anyone who wanted one could have one.

Kelly says he doesn't know a single waivered ham.

I wonder if there's any middle ground here that comes closer to the truth?

I personally know one person who got a waiver (my ex husband) and was
present at a test session as a candidate where another person got a waiver.

People didn't make a big deal of it so it's hard to say how many got them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

. . . . . .

Those waivers effectively meant that nobody really had to go beyond the 5
wpm
test to get a US ham license. All it took was a doctor's note from *any*
MD or
DO, and you could write the letter and get the doc to sign it. You didn't
need
a diagnosis of any particular problem, nor any sort of permanent
condition,
just a rather vague certification that for medical reasons it would be
harder
for you to pass the test than the average bloke.

Do you know of *anyone* who tried and couldn't get a waiver? Or *any* doc
who
was even questioned by FCC? I don't.

I don't even know anybody who got one of those waivers much less how
they pulled it off.

Interesting. Jim says anyone who wanted one could have one.

Kelly says he doesn't know a single waivered ham.

I wonder if there's any middle ground here that comes closer to the truth?

That all depends on the gossip heard at the captain's table during
dinner (served by "drudges").

Whatever it is, it is 100% absolutely guaranteed TRVTH (engraved in
marble) whenever spoken by a PCTA extra. [probably has an
Underwriters' tag attached...]

In article ,
(William) writes:

(always write even when wrong) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

. . . . . .

Those waivers effectively meant that nobody really had to go beyond the
5
wpm
test to get a US ham license. All it took was a doctor's note from *any*
MD
or
DO, and you could write the letter and get the doc to sign it. You
didn't
need
a diagnosis of any particular problem, nor any sort of permanent
condition,
just a rather vague certification that for medical reasons it would be
harder
for you to pass the test than the average bloke.

Do you know of *anyone* who tried and couldn't get a waiver? Or *any*
doc
who
was even questioned by FCC? I don't.

I don't even know anybody who got one of those waivers much less how
they pulled it off.

Nobody had to say they got one.

Why open themselves up to mountains of ridicule and scorn?

Preparation for accessing ham newsgroups run by PCTA extras.

:-)

I've known a few hams who did. All they needed
to do was write a letter and get *any* practicing MD or DO to sign it. FCC
gave
detailed instructions about what info should be in the letter. Basically it
could be almost anything medically related.

Steve would say "who better than a licensed medical authority?"

Maybe the ARRL Section Manager would have been a better way to go?
Hi, hi!

Suggest it to Executive President for Life, Sumner. It could be a
great editorial in a QST issue. Another "Miss Ham Manners" thing.

But there was a lot of complaining in some
quarters about waivers, so FCC made 'em go away.

Once more the ADA cut both ways.

Nothing to do with ADA at all.

Waivers came about because ol' JY1 asked Papa Bush for a favor and the Prez
passed the buck down to FCC. FCC dreamed up the medical waiver thing, not
any
handicapped-hams group.

Now you're starting to sound like K3LT. Do you have any opinions wrt
Ten-Ten International?

Jimmie has opinions about everything. Each and every one of them
is write and "right." Anyone who disagrees is always "wrong."

He Knows... :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

Jimmie has opinions about everything. Each and every one of them
is write and "right." Anyone who disagrees is always "wrong."


You've hosed this one up too, Leonard. Anyone who is wrong is wrong.
That isn't to say that the individual is always wrong. If he is wrong
on another occasion, it will no doubt be pointed out.

Foghorn Lenhorn makes statement of fact. All too often his statements
are flat out wrong.

He Knows... :-)

Often, you don't. :-)

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Jimmie has opinions about everything. Each and every one of them
is write and "right." Anyone who disagrees is always "wrong."

You've hosed this one up too, Leonard. Anyone who is wrong is wrong.
That isn't to say that the individual is always wrong. If he is wrong
on another occasion, it will no doubt be pointed out.

Foghorn Lenhorn makes statement of fact. All too often his statements
are flat out wrong.

We've seen Len behave like this many times before, Dave. He simply cannot
tolerate having his mistakes and errors pointed out by someone he considers
inferior - such as me.

It's a plain, simple fact that we got code waivers because JY1 (better known as
King Hussein of Jordan) asked then-president George Bush to do something about
US code test requirements for hams. GB1 told FCC to do something, and we got
medical waivers.

It wasn't because of ADA, or Handi-Hams, or anything like that.

For some reason, Len doesn't like having that sort of thing pointed out.

He's probably also ticked about being proved wrong on his "subdivision was only
possible because of modern frequency synthesizer" statement. Apparently, Len
cannot conceive of the concept of being allowed to operate anywhere within a
given band of frequencies, and of not having to know one's exact QRG within a
few Hz - only that one's transmitted signal is inside the band.

Back about 1961, there was an article by W1ICP in QST showing how to build a
100/50 kHz frequency standard. 6AU6 oscillator, 12AU7 multivibrator (which
today we'd call a flipflop). It was a "Beginner and Novice" article....

All a ham needed was something like that to know where the band and subband
edges were.

But Len just doesn't get it.

He Knows... :-)

Often, you don't. :-)

Exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Jimmie has opinions about everything. Each and every one of them
is write and "right." Anyone who disagrees is always "wrong."

You've hosed this one up too, Leonard. Anyone who is wrong is wrong.
That isn't to say that the individual is always wrong. If he is wrong
on another occasion, it will no doubt be pointed out.

Foghorn Lenhorn makes statement of fact. All too often his statements
are flat out wrong.

We've seen Len behave like this many times before, Dave. He simply cannot
tolerate having his mistakes and errors pointed out by someone he considers
inferior - such as me.

It is an upside down world in which a ham, posting in an amateur radio
newsgroup is considered inferior by a non-ham who hangs out here for
reasons known only to himself.

It's a plain, simple fact that we got code waivers because JY1 (better known as
King Hussein of Jordan) asked then-president George Bush to do something about
US code test requirements for hams. GB1 told FCC to do something, and we got
medical waivers.

It wasn't because of ADA, or Handi-Hams, or anything like that.

Leonard isn't about to allow facts to stand in his way.

For some reason, Len doesn't like having that sort of thing pointed out.

I'd say the reason is that he looks foolish when he attempts to
pontificate on something he knows little about.

He's probably also ticked about being proved wrong on his "subdivision was only
possible because of modern frequency synthesizer" statement. Apparently, Len
cannot conceive of the concept of being allowed to operate anywhere within a
given band of frequencies, and of not having to know one's exact QRG within a
few Hz - only that one's transmitted signal is inside the band.

Len is accustomed to using spot frequency channels. The way most
amateur radio operation takes place is outside his field of reference.

Back about 1961, there was an article by W1ICP in QST showing how to build a
100/50 kHz frequency standard. 6AU6 oscillator, 12AU7 multivibrator (which
today we'd call a flipflop). It was a "Beginner and Novice" article....

All a ham needed was something like that to know where the band and subband
edges were.

But Len just doesn't get it.

....because it places the situation outside his "Frequency synthesizers
began appearing in many radio services...." pontification. His status
(the one he doesn't need or want) as expert is invalidated.

Dave K8MN

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


Len Over 21 wrote:

Jimmie has opinions about everything. Each and every one of them
is write and "right." Anyone who disagrees is always "wrong."

You've hosed this one up too, Leonard. Anyone who is wrong is wrong.
That isn't to say that the individual is always wrong. If he is wrong
on another occasion, it will no doubt be pointed out.

Foghorn Lenhorn makes statement of fact. All too often his statements
are flat out wrong.

We've seen Len behave like this many times before, Dave. He simply cannot
tolerate having his mistakes and errors pointed out by someone he considers
inferior - such as me.

Did I say you, specifically, were "inferior?" :-)

You are a PCTA extra. That makes you different than normal people.

Can't compare the PCTA extras with ordinary normal people. :-)


It's a plain, simple fact that we got code waivers because JY1 (better known
as
King Hussein of Jordan) asked then-president George Bush to do something about
US code test requirements for hams. GB1 told FCC to do something, and we got
medical waivers.

It wasn't because of ADA, or Handi-Hams, or anything like that.

For some reason, Len doesn't like having that sort of thing pointed out.

Was I discussing (the late) King Hussein? I don't think so.

The URBAN MYTH that the code test waivers came about is still
not verified by any documentation. That makes it hearsay.

To challenge that urban myth it is not hearsay but heresy. :-)

Show us the documentation that the King of Jordan did all that
you say. Knock yourself out on that one.

Remember, hearsay doesn't hold any water...better get a leak-
proof receptacle.


Back about 1961, there was an article by W1ICP in QST showing how to build a
100/50 kHz frequency standard. 6AU6 oscillator, 12AU7 multivibrator (which
today we'd call a flipflop). It was a "Beginner and Novice" article....

Wow! How about that!

In 1949 I put a 100 KHz controlled 6AU6 (pentode) inside my National
NC-57 receiver. Suggestion of (then) W9ERU (later W7DI but now SK),
Gene Hubbel. No "articles" on how to do it but the James Knights
crystal box had a little suggested-circuit sketch. :-)

No mumblyvibrator needed, harmonics good enough to set the
main tuning dial to use the bandspread.

Gene Hubbel's original suggestion was to use a 2.5 mHy RFC with
a 1000 pFd capacitor (approximate...part of it being a trimmer). Then
he advised me on how the National could be tapped into for power to
the calibrator.

All a ham needed was something like that to know where the band and subband
edges were.

Riiiiight. Like that is SO good to find those new "channels" hams got
in the USA. A nice harmonic-rich "calibrator." :-)

But Len just doesn't get it.

I've "gotten" mine, Jimmie. :-)

Long, long time ago. Back in high school. :-)

So...is it too early to ask about your fellowship position at NIST?

We are all waiting to hear how you've impressed the scientists...

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Jimmie has opinions about everything.

What's wrong with having opinions and expressing them?

Whatt's wrong with knowing facts and stating them?

Each and every one of them
is write and "right." Anyone who disagrees is always "wrong."

That's how *Len* behaves.

You've hosed this one up too, Leonard. Anyone who is wrong is wrong.
That isn't to say that the individual is always wrong. If he is wrong
on another occasion, it will no doubt be pointed out.

Foghorn Lenhorn makes statement of fact. All too often his statements
are flat out wrong.

We've seen Len behave like this many times before, Dave. He simply cannot
tolerate having his mistakes and errors pointed out by someone he considers
inferior - such as me.

It is an upside down world in which a ham, posting in an amateur radio
newsgroup is considered inferior by a non-ham who hangs out here for
reasons known only to himself.

Len has stated that his mission is to eliminate the Morse Code test. Yet he
goes off on all kinds of subjects that have nothing to do with the Morse Code
test.

It's a plain, simple fact that we got code waivers because JY1 (better
known as
King Hussein of Jordan) asked then-president George Bush to do something
about
US code test requirements for hams. GB1 told FCC to do something, and we
got medical waivers.

It wasn't because of ADA, or Handi-Hams, or anything like that.

Leonard isn't about to allow facts to stand in his way.

Of course not. Never mind that the above facts came from someone who worked for
FCC and who explained the whole process.

Len never worked for FCC.

For some reason, Len doesn't like having that sort of thing pointed out.

I'd say the reason is that he looks foolish when he attempts to
pontificate on something he knows little about.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he is very threatened and afraid of being shown to be wrong
about something, because if he admits a mistake in one area, he might also be
mistaken in another area.

Even worse, Len might have to deal with the idea that different people have
different opinions, and that others are not wrong or inferior because they
disagree with him.

For example, it is my opinion that Morse Code testing for an amateur radio
license should continue and be expanded. It is Len's opinion that Morse Code
testing for an amateur radio license should be competely discontinued.

Both opinions have supporting arguments behind them. Ultimately, though, it all
comes down to which arguments are considered most significant - which is just
another way of defining an opinion.

He's probably also ticked about being proved wrong on his "subdivision was
only
possible because of modern frequency synthesizer" statement. Apparently,
Len
cannot conceive of the concept of being allowed to operate anywhere within
a
given band of frequencies, and of not having to know one's exact QRG within
a
few Hz - only that one's transmitted signal is inside the band.

Len is accustomed to using spot frequency channels. The way most
amateur radio operation takes place is outside his field of reference.

Exactly. It appears that he wants/needs for Amateur Radio to conform to those
radio services he has some experience in, such as citizens band and GMRS/FRS.

The *freedom* with which hams operate is obviously very threatening to Len.

Note also that the subject under discussion was the ability of hams to stay
within their bands and subbands, not the ability to dial up a specific QRG. Yet
Len tries to push the discussion away from the subject.

Back about 1961, there was an article by W1ICP in QST showing how to build
a
100/50 kHz frequency standard. 6AU6 oscillator, 12AU7 multivibrator (which
today we'd call a flipflop). It was a "Beginner and Novice" article....

All a ham needed was something like that to know where the band and
subband
edges were.

But Len just doesn't get it.

In 1961, when that article was written, all US amateur HF bands and subbands
were on multiples of 100 or 50 kHz. (160 is MF not HF). Thus, the need for a
divider. When incentive licensing was enacted, some subband edges were on
multiples of 25 kHz, requiring another multivibrator. But by that time, IC
dividers were common enough that a simple 100/50/25 kHz standard could be made
from a couple of ICs.

No synthesizer needed at all.

...because it places the situation outside his "Frequency synthesizers
began appearing in many radio services...." pontification. His status
(the one he doesn't need or want) as expert is invalidated.

I'm sure there are areas of knowledge where Len is an expert. Amateur radio is
not one of them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total all classes - 674,792

As of September 30, 2004:

Novice - 30,302 (decrease of 19,027)
Technician - 264,057 (increase of 58,663)
Technician Plus - 56,472 (decrease of 72,388)
General - 138,753 (increase of 26,076)
Advanced - 78,699 (decrease of 21,083)
Extra - 105,834 (increase of 27,084)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 320,529 (decrease of 13,725)

Total all classes - 674,117 (decrease of 675)

73 de Jim, N2EY

2 months in a row with BIG Declines, guess what the DUMBING DOWN isnt working.
Must mean the CW Test wasnt the Problem.