"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Don't hold your breath, Mike. I'm not sure I've ever seen that Larry
has
met a chall....sched yet.

Kim:

I "challenge" you to a schedule on 20-meter PSK-31. Put up or shut
up!
BTW -- I know you're a Tech, so simply have your OM (a General) serve
as control op! Perfectly legal Third-Party operation. The ball is in
YOUR
court now -- so no excuses! You started this, now show us all that
you
have any credibility whatsoever. If you squirm out of this QSO
challenge,
you will forever be self-nullified in this NG.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Hmmm, so far, not a peep out of Kim! I hope it's because she's busily
preparing her PSK-31 station for our QSO!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry, that's the first time I've ever seen that challenge. I've seen
the
thread, but could not find the original challenge to know what it was. I
actually thought it was something Steve had said.

I don't care to meet your challenge, Larry, and I am not the one who has
solicited challenges in the past. As I understand it, by looking here
only,
I've never seen anyone say that their challenge to you (mostly on a CW
sched) was ever realized.

Kim:

Scroll up. You're the one who said you've never seen that I had met a
chall[enge] or a sked. So I offered one. If you refuse my challenge
for a PSK-31 sked, then you've gotta do the right thing and take back
what you said about me. However, as usual, I'm not holding my
breath.

Oh, and the PSK-31 station is established (when the radio would be set
back
up), because my hubby really likes that mode.

So, what's the problem? I can get my station set back up in 10 minutes.
However, for your convenience, I'll leave my challenge open indefinitely.

73 de Larry, K3LT


No, you scroll up. I said, "I'm not sure I've ever seen that Larry has met
a chall....sched yet." That means that when you have been challenged to
meet a sched, I have not seen evidence that you have ever met one. I did
not challenge you, never have challenged you.

*Have you ever met a sched that was offered here?*

Now, if you want to turn that around to making it look like I am challenging
you, that's fine.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Ahhh... ya caught it!! :) Yep, at least the police as they are "cousins"
in the Brotherhood.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...

Ryan:

What about police and the military? Aren't they also doing God's work?

73 de Larry, K3LT
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . .--. .- .-. .- - .-. .- -.
....
.. - -.. .-. .. ...- . .-. ...

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

John:

Yes, that's right. And the reason it's "going away" is because of all
the "whining" done by the NCTA over the years.

No. The reason its going away is that the PCTA couldn't present a
sound argument to the FCC for its retention.

Brian

Brian:

The PCTA didn't present "a" sound argument to the FCC for the retention
of code testing -- they presented hundreds of them! The trouble is, the FCC
already had it's mind made up. Amateur Radio in general represents an
administrative burden to the FCC, and deregulating it down to the bare
bones is in their organizational interest. Also, as a government agency,
the FCC had to respond to a lot of political and social issues, and one of
the trickiest and most time consuming in the ARS was the concept of
medical waivers for code testing. So, dumbing-down to a single 5-WPM
code test was pretty much a no-brainer for them. Therefore, it wasn't because
of a lack of valid arguments on the PCTA side. Nothing we said could have
made them retain the status quo in code testing, because they wanted to
eliminate that particular administrative burden. As usual, it's all about
money.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Also, as a government agency,
the FCC had to respond to a lot of political and social issues, and one of
the trickiest and most time consuming in the ARS was the concept of
medical waivers for code testing.

Naw, as code testing is completely unnecessary, keeping track of code
testing was a monumental waste of time.

Brian:

(Yawn!) Don't look now, but that's what I meant!

So, dumbing-down to a single 5-WPM
code test was pretty much a no-brainer for them. Therefore, it wasn't
because
of a lack of valid arguments on the PCTA side.

Wrong. The FCC and NCI came to the same conclusion long ago:

Code Testing is completely unnecessary. Only the whining and crying
and the ITU kept it alive as long as it did.

I don't recall any "whining and crying" from the ITU. Through their
World Radiocommunication Conferences, they have a democratic process
for changing International Treaty radio regulations, with the member
administrations representing their own unique interests. Until WRC-03,
they had not seen fit to eliminate the S25.5 Morse code testing
requirement. Now, they have. No whining, no crying, just the usual
democratic process, applied fairly. I accept their decision, even though
I don't agree with it.

Nothing we said could have
made them retain the status quo in code testing, because they wanted to
eliminate that particular administrative burden. As usual, it's all about
money.

73 de Larry, K3LT

As usual, it was about common sense. We finally got past the
emotional outbursts and the ITU requirement.

My recollection is that the "emotional outbursts" have been on the
NCTA side. The PCTA's always posed the logical, "common sense"
arguments. Get it right for once, please!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

So, what's the problem? I can get my station set back up in 10 minutes.
However, for your convenience, I'll leave my challenge open indefinitely.

73 de Larry, K3LT


No, you scroll up. I said, "I'm not sure I've ever seen that Larry has met
a chall....sched yet." That means that when you have been challenged to
meet a sched, I have not seen evidence that you have ever met one. I did
not challenge you, never have challenged you.

Kim:

No, all you did was make a speculative comment that I have failed to
meet challenges or schedules with my fellow hams and rrap participants.
Now, you obviously felt a need to make that comment, so please share
with us, what was the reason? After all, you implied something
negative about me, so there MUST be some reason for you to do that.

*Have you ever met a sched that was offered here?*

Now, if you want to turn that around to making it look like I am challenging
you, that's fine.

I haven't turned anything around, Kim. All I did was offer you a challenge
to a PSK-31 sked. After all, you apparently had no faith in my ability to
meet the challenge/sked, so I am now offering you the "proof" you seem
to require. If you don't want to take me up on my challenge, then that
means that you think that you can accuse me of never doing so, but then
not permit me to offer evidence to the contrary. I must assume, then, that
you are backing off of your allegation, and are now going to offer your
apology for having made it. Ahem…feel free to proceed.

73 de Larry, K3LT