(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the
membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top
of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is
apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do
have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the
membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL
BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the
wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat
debacles get boring.

I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same
basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version:
"Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do
you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old
could handle the tabulation . . .

Kelly, that was a very nice presentation of an idea.

The survey could be accomplished via the ARRL web site, membership
required to log-in, at a total cost of about $40 for an hour of the
web programmer's time. The ARRL members who don't have web capability
can make a trip to the public library and vote. They should probably
get out more anyway.

Brian

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Hmmmm. Are you saying that the "Operate CW" numbers are inflated?

No, I'm saying the survey measures the respondents opinions of their own
levels of activity. What that means in objective terms is something on
which you're free to speculate, although I can't imagine what useful
result would obtain from such speculations.

Jon

Jon, you can't, huh? At a time when the ARRL wanted to save CW
testing, I could imagine the use of upping the numbers. Just my
opinion.

ARRL represents LESS than a quarter of all licensed US radio
amateurs. By their own demographics, ARRL membership is
already slanted towards morsemanship.

For survival as an organization, ARRL must represent its member-
ship and thus there is a positive feedback to sustaining
morsemanship.

While that isn't "proof" quid pro quo, the inference is readily
apparant to anyone the least familiar with amateur radio.

ARRL spin is, of course, that they "represent all amateurs" but in
fact all they "represent" is a minority of all licensed amateurs.

LHA

On 24 Jul 2003 03:28:04 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Memo to John, KC2HMZ: If I were you, I'd get my squelch fixed -- it
doesn't seem to be working!

That's because no mere squelch circuit could realistically be expected
to cope with your noise level. For dealing with you, an attenuator and
some serious filtering are required.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
news
On 24 Jul 2003 03:28:04 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Memo to John, KC2HMZ: If I were you, I'd get my squelch fixed -- it
doesn't seem to be working!

That's because no mere squelch circuit could realistically be expected
to cope with your noise level. For dealing with you, an attenuator and
some serious filtering are required.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ


Or, an on/off knob.

Kim W5TIT


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

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the
membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top
of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is
apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do
have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the
membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL
BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the
wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat
debacles get boring.

I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same
basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version:
"Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do
you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old
could handle the tabulation . . .

Kelly, that was a very nice presentation of an idea.

Every once in awhile . .

The survey could be accomplished via the ARRL web site, membership
required to log-in, at a total cost of about $40 for an hour of the
web programmer's time.

Maybe not forty bucks but would not require another "fund drive" to
carry out.

The ARRL members who don't have web capability
can make a trip to the public library and vote.

Tricky issue. I think one would be hard-pressed to find many active
hams who are not online. Plus when ya get right down to it 2-3
thousand reponses would be a big enough sample to produce a
statistically rigorous result.

They should probably
get out more anyway.

Prolly.


Brian

w3rv

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Stu Parker wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:16:40 GMT, Carl R. Stevenson
wrote:
[snip]

Go ahead. Pick at nits. We all know what he meant.

But the point is well-taken. If CW is to be removed as a
*requirement* for a ham license, then its special status has
evaporated. Why give it any band-plan perks at all? CW operators can
already operate in the phone bands (most of them don't, but that's a
free choice), so why not accord the phone users the same freedom of
choice?

I'd be in favor of reserving a very small portion of each HF band for
rtty, psk31, etc., but I'd let all modes permitted by an operator's
license be used everywhere else.

In other words, it is legitimate and useful to reevaluate the entire
band-plan structure of the Amateur Radio Service, and it is even
thinkable that what is commonly called the "cw portion" of the bands
should be reallocated.

Well, Carl, here is a well thought out and well presented argument.
Your answer?

What is yours...other than another trolling "question"?

I do agree that Stu's comments are perfectly valid and reasonable
points to consider.

But, I've also seen so #$%^&!! many "points" about keeping the
status quo absolute in here that I cannot expect reasonable people
to be considered.

The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the
WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood
regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those?

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the
WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood
regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those?

Oh?

And whom might they be? Everyone in the "pro-code" camp here,
myself included, has expressed regret over the recent events, but we
are also all of us involved in OTHER modes.

Uhhhhh...those are modes YOU can't use, Lennie...No Tickee No
Transmitee.

Of course there IS Part 15 and Part 95....Built your MURS
repeater yet, Lennie? You sure haven't exactly been burning up the
airwaves with that Part 15 transmitter you said you were going to put
on 20 meters.

Steve, K4YZ

Len Over 21 wrote:

The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the
WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood
regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those?

What is any of this to you, Leonard? You aren't involved in amateur
radio in any way. You aren't a ham. You aren't a regulator. You
aren't a budding neophyte. You're a guy who delights in pointing out
his past accomplishments in military and commercial radio.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the
WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood
regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those?

What is any of this to you, Leonard?

Colonel Klunk, you have NO authority to demand any such answer.

You are not Mike Coslo...to whom my remarks were aimed.

Why do you attempt to answer for another?

Do you have multiple personalities? Or is your psychosis a mild one
of simple hatred for anyone pointing out that you never did any
glorious government radio pioneering in the 1980s.

You aren't involved in amateur radio in any way.

Not required.

You aren't a ham.

The FDA hasn't been around to stamp my beef. Why do you think
you can beef so much without such inspection?

You aren't a regulator.

NEITHER ARE YOU.

Quit trying to play Raddio Kop. Or did you get one of those nice
shields in the mail so that you can flip open your badge wallet and
pretend to be some kind of officer? Were your friends and neighbors
amazed and delighted at your "promotion?"

You aren't a budding neophyte.

I was a "neophyte" in radio a half century ago. That quickly passed.

You're a guy who delights in pointing out
his past accomplishments in military and commercial radio.

Sorry, but you are LYING again. As I keep saying, the US Army quit
using morse code modes for long-haul primary communications on HF
in 1948. I began operating on HF in early 1953 as part of a team of four
to keep a very large Army radio station operating 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.

Both the US Army and US Air Force quit using morse code modes for
long-distance primary communications on HF 55 years ago.

"It ain't braggin' if ya done it." I did it.

LHA

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the
WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood
regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those?

Oh?

And whom might they be?

Robeson, Heil, Miccolis, Carroll, Kehler, Deignan, at least one SK,
Roll, and assorted others who have their code keys removed from
dead, cold fingers.

Everyone in the "pro-code" camp here,
myself included, has expressed regret over the recent events, but we
are also all of us involved in OTHER modes.

Such as?

You guys have spent SO much time on here that you cannot have
"worked" any ham bands. Since you don't have any verification of
such "working" that cannot be falsified, your word is suspect.

Uhhhhh...those are modes YOU can't use, Lennie...No Tickee No
Transmitee.

Puerile and an ethnic insult to Asians. You still haven't taken your
medications like you've been instructed.


Of course there IS Part 15 and Part 95....Built your MURS
repeater yet, Lennie? You sure haven't exactly been burning up the
airwaves with that Part 15 transmitter you said you were going to put
on 20 meters.

Steamy, you really DO have a great problem with rational thought.
That is not uncommon in those with a psychosis.

I've never intended to "burn up airwaves with Part 15 transmitters."

Why do you spout such LIES?

I've never said anything about "putting any transmitter on 20 meters,"
or any other amateur band. I HAVE been on hand to help other
radio amateurs match their transceivers to their antennas for maximum
power output...but then I know how to do such things both practically
and theoretically and have done such in commercial radio service.

You continue to LIE about my "not having any license."

I have had a commercial operator's license since 1956. I have had
two non-amateur radio station licenses since then.

The subject is NOT any individual's accomplishments. The subject is
the FUTURE of one radio service aftet the morse code test is abolished
for a license exam.

You cannot stay in focus on the subject. You continually attack the
person instead of the subject. Your psychosis is manifesting itself
stronger and stronger every day.

You need competent medical help for you mind. You can't help
yourself in that department...you don't have the qualifications.

LHA