Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #371   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 08:26 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably)
intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such
a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion.



Maybe we're just not that smart, Carl. And you're arguing with us! Face
it, you're enjoying all this, and having a good time rubbing our nose in


it.

- Mike KB3EIA -




Mike,

Its really NOT my intention to "rub noses in it" ... honest ... if it comes
across that way, I apologize.


You do.


What I *am* trying to do is counter the illogical with some logic and
the political/regulatory/technical realities.


You are doomed to failure, because trying to apply logic to this is not
possible.

I look at this and I see lazy people trying to avoid an entry test that
I can't find any good reason to get rid of.

Why? I can't stand lazy people!

Is that logical? Depends on how you look at it, but probably not
logical at all. After all, is it not logical to increase ones worth
(education, toys, wealth, honors, etc.) with a minimum amount of effort?

This of course can be carried to an absurd level if we wish, but let's
not go there for the purposes of this discussion.

Now that does not mean that the other end of the argument is blessed
with logic either. Removal of a perfectly good requirement so that those
who do not wish to take it don't have to, is not logical either. Morse
code harms no one, and is arguably quite useful. The extra effort it
takes to learn it is of no consequence for anyone but an unfortunate few
who have difficulties picking it up

So what do we have? We have some people who don't like Morse code, and
we have some people who do.

No logic applies here. You will fail trying to force fit logic into
this situation. All of the PCTA people here are intelligent individuals
who just happen to enjoy Morse Code. The NCTA's are also intelligent
individuals, most of whom hate Morse code.

But they don't use logic in making that assessment, no matter how hard
they try to convince themselves that they are. We can make as many
logical statements as we like, but if the initial premise is not
logical, then it doesn't matter.

And as for political/regulatory/technical realities, we know them.
Nobody thinks that the test will be retained. They are going away.
Nothing more real than that. You win. Your illogic beat our illogic.

- Mike KB3EIA -


  #372   Report Post  
Old July 18th 03, 11:05 PM
Carl R. Stevenson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
What I *am* trying to do is counter the illogical with some logic and
the political/regulatory/technical realities.


You are doomed to failure, because trying to apply logic to this is not
possible.

I look at this and I see lazy people trying to avoid an entry test that
I can't find any good reason to get rid of.

Why? I can't stand lazy people!


I don't like *genuinely* lazy people either ... it galls me that some
of my hard-earned salary goes to welfare programs that support
the congenitally lazy. (I have NO problem with aid to those who
are genuinely, through no fault of their own, having hard times,
but for a limited period of time, not as a "career.")

But the characterization of all (even most) of the folks who aren't
interested in "jumping through the Morse hoop" is inaccurate and
unfair.

No logic applies here. You will fail trying to force fit logic into
this situation. All of the PCTA people here are intelligent individuals
who just happen to enjoy Morse Code.


For the most part, yes, but how do you explain Bruce?

The NCTA's are also intelligent individuals, most of whom hate
Morse code.


It's not really that I "hate Morse" ...what I *hate* is the fact that
(because)
I ... and others ... have NO interest in EVER using it again, let alone in
becoming proficient at 20 wpm or more, folks tell me ... and others ...
that I am/we are an inferior ham(s) and will NEVER amount to anything
because of that simple reality (ignoring any and all other skills,
knowledge,
or attributes I ... or others ... may have that *could* make me ... or
others ... valuable contributors to the amateur community. THAT's what
I hate and what really gripes my ass.

But they don't use logic in making that assessment, no matter how hard
they try to convince themselves that they are. We can make as many
logical statements as we like, but if the initial premise is not
logical, then it doesn't matter.


I don't understand how you can assert that it is not logical for
someone to resist an unnecessary, unjusitifiable requirement
that is imposed on them to gain privileges that have nothing to
do with the requirement. And to resist/resent being treated
as a lesser ham/person for it ...

I do, however, understand that it is NOT logical for folks to
presume that they can insist on forcing such a requirement on
the folks refered to in the previous paragraph and not expect
them to complain and resist.

At least for US hams, this is America ... where everyone is
supposed to be free to do as they please as long as they don't
harm others or infringe upon their rights in some way ... the fact
that *I* don't want to do Morse doesn't infringe on your right
to *do* Morse ...

And as for political/regulatory/technical realities, we know them.
Nobody thinks that the test will be retained. They are going away.
Nothing more real than that. You win. Your illogic beat our illogic.


No, our logic beat your illogic ... no gloating ... we worked hard for
it ... our arguments won out in the LOGICAL, well-considered
evaluations of the governments of the world.

Carl - wk3c


  #374   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 12:22 AM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message om...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Kelley refers to himself as a "beepist."

Where? You are mistaken. AC6XG hasn't posted here in quite some time,
and I've never seen him refer to himself that way.

Is Kelley against Morse/CW use?

Nope. I've worked AC6XG at least twice, both times on CW. Once was on
Field Day (20 CW) and the other on the rrap net on 7037 kHz.


Ahhh. Applying the old Dave Heil "I'm gonna be obtuse" tactic?


I'll think about answering your questions after you answer mine about
your alleged /T5 operation.

Poor Jimmy, gotsta resort to tricks.


The only Kelley I know is AC6XG.

Is there anyone else here who has referred to hisself as a "beepist?"


I'll think about answering your questions after you answer mine about
your alleged /T5 operation.


Like Dave, we have nothing to say to each other, but you still keep trying.

Sayonara, Brian
  #375   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 12:36 AM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Nope. I've worked AC6XG at least twice, both times on CW. Once was on
Field Day (20 CW) and the other on the rrap net on 7037 kHz.


The rrap net on 7030 kHz???

Is that where you PCTAs send "secret messages," safe from the
prying eyes/ears of the no-coders??? :-)

Sheesh ...

Carl - wk3c


Carl, about 3 years ago the PCTA coerced Cecil to come out and play
with them on CW. Maybe he thought it would smooth over some of the
animosity they had for him. I don't know. It was reported that "A
good time was had by all," but the honeymoon lasted only a short
while, then they treated him as crappily as ever.

More recently, the PCTA have again tried to coerce their enemies to
the amateur bands using, of all things, phone. I'm not sure how that
one turned out, but I took a lot of grief for refusing to do so. I
think their peace pipe was loaded with date rape drugs.

Even more recently, RV Kelley challenged another poster to meet him on
the bands "anywhere, any time." I asked if that's how 14.313 got
started.

No good can come from meeting these guys on the air. No point in
screwing up another frequency like 3950.

73, bb


  #376   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 12:48 AM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't it be great if all the PCTA people would just go away?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Nah ... the ridiculous arguments you folks make for keeping a
Morse test requirement just make NCI's job easier :-)

(read the MO&O where the FCC blew away all of the
petitions for reconsideration of dropping the 13 and 20 wpm
tests ... :-)

Carl - wk3c


Carl, go easy on them - it's all they had. Logic just wasn't on their
side.

What would make the transition nicer is to lose all the sour grapes.
Not only haven't these boys learned logic, but good sportsmanship is
lost on them as well. Reminds me of the time the Republicans reformed
welfare.

73, Brian
  #377   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 01:00 AM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.


Carl:

The above statement can be objectively evaluated only in the
context of future ARRL initiatives and FCC actions regarding
amateur HF sub-band mode authorizations. Once code testing
is finally abolished in the US amateur licensing process, it will
be much easier to re-allocate more spectrum to phone modes, to
the detriment of CW -- and I rather suspect that's precisely what
will happen.


I will be there beside you (figuratively), opposing expansion of the
phone bands ... with ONE *possible* exception. With the realignment
of 40m and broadcasting, we will have 7000-7200 exclusive in all
3 regions. It would seem equitable, given the structure of the other
bands, where the CW/data segments and the phone segments are
pretty equal, to shift the phone band lower limit from 7150 (Extra)
down to 7100 ...since the upper 100 kHz from 7200-7300 will
still be trashed by SW broadcast. This is the ONLY *possible*
situation that I can envision where I would consider supporting an
expansion of HF phone bands.

This is my *personal* comment and NOT "NCI policy" ...

Carl - wk3c


Had Larry included "digital" with his cry to preserve CW spectrum, I
would figuratively stand with the both of you as well.

As it stands, all spectrum except the new 5MHz channels are CW
capable. Is it really necessary to keep that much of it CW exclusive?

Personally, I think the amateur bands should be aligned worlwide, with
respect to not only frequency, but also mode. If the DX doesn't want
to come out and play with Americans or anyone else, I'm sure some
other jet-setting hams, dept of state, or UN experts will be happy to
fill in the voids for a couple of IRCs or greenstamps.

ditto personal opinion deniability

73, Brian
  #378   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 02:55 AM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the

future
of ham radio.

Then who is?


The hams are the most qualified to judge what is good for the future of
ham radio.


So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed?
approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules.


Works for me.


But we both know the concept is bogus.

However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the
needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of
hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler.


So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any
rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have
any interfernece issues related to them...such as
band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test
requirements, etc.?


Nope. Not at all.

The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's

a
good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that

FCC
enacted the rule.


The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't
make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable
or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may
be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't
or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what
it does for ham radio.

Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of

the
motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it stayed

on
the books for decades.


Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare)
of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was
the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress
getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry
who wanted the 55 limit.

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.

Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services so that they can coexist.

That's only part of their purpose.


What's the rest?


Others include need for the service, use, benefit of
the service to the public good, etc.
IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you
doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio
as a service even though there was no coexistence problem?

Read up on the history of the FCC. They were established to regulate

the
various services so all could operate with minimal interference. If

there
had been no conflicts among the various users of the radio spectrum,

there
would have been no FCC (see the book "200 Meters and Down").


That is so patently obvious...it does not,
however, prove or make any suggestion that the FCC
today does not consider rules as being beneficial or not
to ham radio service.


The point is that while they consider the beneficial aspect, they are not

all
powerful, nor necessarily even that friendly to what is best for amateur

radio.
IOW they're stuck with us and we're stuck with them.


I never said otherwise. My comment was directed at the concept that
the FCC "only" makes decisions based on interference based
issues. You agree that the FCC can and does consider the
beneficial aspect to a service...even if that decision may be
detrimental.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals
for ham radio or any other service.


Those goals are not necessarily what's best for amateur radio. Was the
re-imposition of "incentive licensing" in 1968 what was best for amateur

radio?
FCC (NOT hams!) insisted on it because they said amateur radio of those

days
was not meeting the goals FCC thought it should.


Again, I never claimed every decision was or had to be judged
by the FCC as being beneficial.

As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the

establishment
of the FCC.


And its predecessors, the FRC, DOC and Navy Department. Not pretty.

The initial purpose of the FCC derived from interference
mitigation.


Not just that - also deciding how to best apportion the spectrum, license
requirements, allowable uses of the spectrum, monitoring and enforcement.
Indeed, FCC defines what the various services are for! F'rinstance, once

upon a
time, hams broadcasting music was not illegal.

The charter of the FCC does not, however,
forclose consideration of what is or isn't beneficial for any
individual service.


No, it doesn't. Doesn't mean that the FCC always does what's best for

hams.
Doesn't mean FCC always makes the best choice or compromise, either.


We are in violent agreement on that :-)

We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist
since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was

only
by
intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in

there.

All of which happened about 80+ years ago.


Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago.


Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.


Which makes all this discussion rather academic.


Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better future

for
amateur radio.


The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as
it was in the past. that's what the public input process
is all about.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK



  #380   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 04:04 AM
Larry Roll K3LT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Carl:

The above statement can be objectively evaluated only in the
context of future ARRL initiatives and FCC actions regarding
amateur HF sub-band mode authorizations. Once code testing
is finally abolished in the US amateur licensing process, it will
be much easier to re-allocate more spectrum to phone modes, to
the detriment of CW -- and I rather suspect that's precisely what
will happen.


I will be there beside you (figuratively), opposing expansion of the
phone bands ... with ONE *possible* exception. With the realignment
of 40m and broadcasting, we will have 7000-7200 exclusive in all
3 regions. It would seem equitable, given the structure of the other
bands, where the CW/data segments and the phone segments are
pretty equal, to shift the phone band lower limit from 7150 (Extra)
down to 7100 ...since the upper 100 kHz from 7200-7300 will
still be trashed by SW broadcast. This is the ONLY *possible*
situation that I can envision where I would consider supporting an
expansion of HF phone bands.

This is my *personal* comment and NOT "NCI policy" ...

Carl - wk3c


Carl:

I agree.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017