| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#371
July 18th 03, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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
July 18th 03, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#373
July 19th 03, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#375
July 19th 03, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
July 19th 03, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
July 19th 03, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
July 19th 03, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#379
July 19th 03, 03:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Brian" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message ... 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. 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. Beats going to war for oil every 10 years or so. It was a dumb rule. Between raising the speed limit and dropping the EPA fleet mileage requirements, I'd say we worked ourselved into a corner. My Chevy silverado get the same gas mileage today as my 64 Chevy convertible did...about 17mpg. My truck probably weighs 150% of what the 64 chevy did. Frankly, "I can't drive 55." Hey, that'd be a great song title :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK "Would you like to biggie size that?" |
|
#380
July 19th 03, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
