In article , JJ
writes:

William wrote:

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

This newsgroup was CREATED for the sole purpose of removing
the morse code testing issue from rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous.

Morse code TESTING is a prime topic of GETTING INTO amateur
radio below 30 MHz. Ergo, the morse code test issue is most
prime for a discussion of amateur radio POLICY.

The exam is receive only.

The omission of the morse code sending test is an OPTION of the
Volunteer Examiner team doing the testing. That is in the
regulations. VEs may invoke a sending test if they so wish.

So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it? You
must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of. And I still
stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she
can't copy it either.

So what good is being tested for morse code...other than it being
the law for amateur radio license examinations in the USA having
below 30 MHz privileges?

The question-topic of the morse code test pertains to GETTING
INTO amateur radio below 30 MHz. Some have misconstrued the
essence of amateur radio as being a skilled radiotelegrapher.
There is nothing in the USA amateur regulations that mandates or
compels any amateur radio licensee to use morse code over and
above any other mode or modulation.

All allocated modes are optional to use in USA amateur radio.
Optional. Option is not a failure.

LHA / WMD

In (Len Over 21) writes:


In article , JJ
writes:

William wrote:

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

This newsgroup was CREATED for the sole purpose of removing
the morse code testing issue from rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous.

[...]

Sole purpose? It seems a bit silly to try to scope any newsgroup,
especially an unmoderated one, to a "sole purpose." Nevertheless, if
you want to follow that line of argument, the historical record
disagrees with you.

During the discussion period preceding the newsgroup vote in 1991 that
realigned the rec.ham-radio.* newsgroups under rec.radio.amateur.*:

http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...a.Stanford.EDU

several other topics were brought up other than Morse code that could
(and eventually did) go into this newsgroup. Phil Howard, KA9WGN, did a
nice job of summarizing them:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...cso.uiuc. edu

and they included:

1. Proposed rules and petitions to the FCC
2. NPRM's issued by the FCC
3. Local antenna/tower issues, laws, covenants
4. Scanner laws and related issues
5. Bandplans and other operating agreements
6. Repeater coordination

Other names for this newsgroup that were considered, and rejected, by
group consensus included .rules, .regs, .regulations, .legal, and even
..fcc. It looks like Jim Grubs, W8GRT, gets the original credit for
proposing the eventually accepted suffix, which was .policy:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rt.fidonet.org

The .policy suffix was adopted specifically because it recognized the
broad range of laws, rules, regulations, consensus, private legal
contracts, organizational agendas, and even gentlemen's
agreements/understandings, that shape amateur radio.

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

1. The legal consequences of using non-amateur radio communications
systems, or even amateur radio equipment out-of-band, in an emergency
2. FCC PRB-1 and its impact on outdoor antenna regulations and
covenants
3. The no-business rule of amateur radio, and its implications (a.k.a.,
"The Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate")
4. The legal authority of frequency coordinators to enforce band plans
and usage, resolve interference disputes, or even refarm existing
analog FM voice repeaters to allow more room for other modes
like packet
5. Interference issues, including that between amateur radio and FCC Part
15-regulated devices, and now Broadband over Powerlines (BPL)

You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

snippage

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rt.fidonet.org

The .policy suffix was adopted specifically because it recognized the
broad range of laws, rules, regulations, consensus, private legal
contracts, organizational agendas, and even gentlemen's
agreements/understandings, that shape amateur radio.

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

1. The legal consequences of using non-amateur radio communications
systems, or even amateur radio equipment out-of-band, in an emergency
2. FCC PRB-1 and its impact on outdoor antenna regulations and
covenants
3. The no-business rule of amateur radio, and its implications (a.k.a.,
"The Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate")
4. The legal authority of frequency coordinators to enforce band plans
and usage, resolve interference disputes, or even refarm existing
analog FM voice repeaters to allow more room for other modes
like packet
5. Interference issues, including that between amateur radio and FCC Part
15-regulated devices, and now Broadband over Powerlines (BPL)

You forgot to add Kim's callsign!



You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?


One might almost think the fellow is just here to bust people's chops.
Thanks for the history and Clarification, Paul.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:01:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

snippage

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rt.fidonet.org

The .policy suffix was adopted specifically because it recognized the
broad range of laws, rules, regulations, consensus, private legal
contracts, organizational agendas, and even gentlemen's
agreements/understandings, that shape amateur radio.

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

1. The legal consequences of using non-amateur radio communications
systems, or even amateur radio equipment out-of-band, in an emergency
2. FCC PRB-1 and its impact on outdoor antenna regulations and
covenants
3. The no-business rule of amateur radio, and its implications (a.k.a.,
"The Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate")
4. The legal authority of frequency coordinators to enforce band plans
and usage, resolve interference disputes, or even refarm existing
analog FM voice repeaters to allow more room for other modes
like packet
5. Interference issues, including that between amateur radio and FCC Part
15-regulated devices, and now Broadband over Powerlines (BPL)

You forgot to add Kim's callsign!

I like Paul's callsign better!




You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?


One might almost think the fellow is just here to bust people's chops.
Thanks for the history and Clarification, Paul.

73, Leo

Mike Coslo wrote:



You forgot to add Kim's callsign!

I suppose the Super Bowl half-time act with Janet Jackson and the other
moron singing with her was just the kind of low class, crass act kim
really enjoys. Maybe kim should loan Jackson her callsign.

Len Over 21 wrote:


The question-topic of the morse code test pertains to GETTING
INTO amateur radio below 30 MHz. Some have misconstrued the
essence of amateur radio as being a skilled radiotelegrapher.

Others have misconstrued the term "GETTING INTO" amateur radio as
meaning the several decades of interest preceeding the several years of
newsgroup posts just before the three-year-old claim of getting "an
Extra right out of the box".

Dave K8MN

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

One might almost think the fellow is just here to bust people's chops.
Thanks for the history and Clarification, Paul.

Poor baby. Feel injured, do you?

Keep the Faith and work, work, work on that morse code to prove to
the amateur community all your dedication and worthiness to the
Old Ways. They will all be proud of you. Remember, morse code
gets through when everything else will.

Don't forget Mass at St. Hiram's early in the morning.

LHA / WMD

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (Len Over
21) writes:

In article , JJ

writes:

William wrote:

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

This newsgroup was CREATED for the sole purpose of removing
the morse code testing issue from rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous.

[...]

Sole purpose? It seems a bit silly to try to scope any newsgroup,
especially an unmoderated one, to a "sole purpose." Nevertheless, if
you want to follow that line of argument, the historical record
disagrees with you.

It "disagrees" all depending on which Google quoting is used! :-)

During the discussion period preceding the newsgroup vote in 1991 that
realigned the rec.ham-radio.* newsgroups under rec.radio.amateur.*:

http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...a.Stanford.EDU

several other topics were brought up other than Morse code that could
(and eventually did) go into this newsgroup. Phil Howard, KA9WGN, did a
nice job of summarizing them:

I'm sure. :-)

snip

Over the 13-year history of the .policy newsgroup, there have been many
energetically debated topic threads about policy in amateur radio other
than Morse code, including:

Ohhhh, there were LOTS more and most of them did NOT involve
anything at all to do with radio, let alone amateur radio. :-)

Do you REALLY want to go there? :-)

Google has nearly all of it...all the talk about choo-choo trains,
presidential politics in all its forms, U.S. foreign policy, breasts
and beasts, automobiles, flying airyplanes, small boats, morals
and morality, parenting, imaginary love lives, divorces, and
all kinds of things very much NOT concerning amateur radio.

Gosh and golly, Paul, I've only been working in radio-electronics
since 1952, didn't get into ARPANET until the 1970s, started
BBSing (as in computer-modem communications) in late 1984
and didn't have any real Internet account until 10 years ago.

I'm absolutely, positively agreeing with your vast experience
in this newsgroup. Since Day One of public-access Internet?


You say that you have been participating on this newsgroup for about 7
years now. Haven't you noticed?

Funny how some folks "notice" things that others don't. :-)

Tell you what, Paul, if you are really and truly upset, go to AOL
Member Services and DEMAND that they lock out my personal
access to this newsgroup. Go ahead, make everyone's day and
make it a CLOSED-to-all-but-amateur-licensees in order to "make
everyone happy." Make it ARRL-South for all I care.

Meanwhile, the FCC and other government agencies still maintain
an open-access-to-citizens policy, made even more open by the
Internet (now 13 years old?). I think that's a good thing. Lots of
folks in here want to rewrite the First Amendment and toss out
"little things" like freedom of speech and petitioning a government.

A rather long time ago I did big-time military communications (most
of it on HF) for three years and never used, nor had to know any
morse code. Never had to know or use it since. But, it seems an
Article of Faith that American Amateurism DEMANDS knowledge
of morse code demonstrated by federal testing in order to enjoy a
recreational radio activity done for personal pleasure. I don't think
that's very fair or "democratic" and will keep on objecting to that
unneeded test in public.

Feel free to object to my objection any which way you want. Just
remember that Internetting is NOT amateur radio. My objection to
your objection is probably going to happen...to you or anyone
else...in any manner and form I care to use...whether or not some
True Believer gets mad as heck and goes out of their way (or
gourd) to toss out very clear LIBEL in a most personal way.

No problem to me. If I'm here and not in Houston, I can match
anyone's shots, shot for shot, and salvo as I care to.

SO FAR in here, this forum doesn't require any amateur radio
license to communicate on the Internet.

Sunnavagun! How about that? :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil Miss Construance
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

The question-topic of the morse code test pertains to GETTING
INTO amateur radio below 30 MHz. Some have misconstrued the
essence of amateur radio as being a skilled radiotelegrapher.

Others have misconstrued the term "GETTING INTO" amateur radio as
meaning the several decades of interest preceeding the several years of
newsgroup posts just before the three-year-old claim of getting "an
Extra right out of the box".

Go for it, big daddy dave. Ain't no cats on your hot tin roof.

I left active duty in 1956, moved to southern California in 1956, worked
IN radio-electronics in the aerospace industries out here. I'm still
working IN it but not at regular hours. Better than 40 hours a week
from then to now. Even did a severe major shift to go from illustration
to electronics engineering. Kept up a hobby in electronics at home
all that time. Even authored articles on electronics and ham radio
as a professional writer in spare time. Became senior staff
engineer at several large electronics corporations.

Howaboutthat? Does that "show enough interest?" I'd say making a
career out of an "interest" ought to prove something to anyone with
more than four brain cells. Nope. Not enough to mighty big dave.
To him (bless his 4-synapse grey matter) I'd have to regress and Learn
To Beep Morse and become an amatoor hum wid a reel lisense.

Geez, snarly dave, those electroshock treatments do take away
some of your smarts. Was the gunnery nurse in attendance?
Did he dance well? Who lead?

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:


Gosh and golly, Paul, I've only been working in radio-electronics
since 1952

And still dosen't know enough to be able to pass the test for a ham license.