| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
August 12th 03, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Question for the No coders
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 8/9/03 9:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: In article , Dwight Stewart writes: "N2EY" wrote: (snip) And amateur radio does not exist to serve other services. (snip) Our public service is often service to other agencies (Red Cross, MARS, and so on). The "pool of trained operators" thing in 97.1 is really about the idea of the ARS being a service where the licensees (hams) are skilled both operationally and technically, able to do a lot of different things well. This distinguishes it from other services, (snip) The pool of trained operators concept relates to our ability to do the other things outlined in 97.1 (public service, international goodwill, and so on). At one time, code was a necessary part of at least some of that. That is much less so today, hence the move to change the code testing requirement. Dwight, that statement in 97.1 is an OLD thing going back decades. Len, you are an old thing, going back decades. It was put in there to rationalize the existance of amateur radio among all the other very commercial radio services. You keep rationalizing your existence here among all the other very amateur operators. Three to four decades ago there MIGHT have been a "need" for "trained operators" for the military draft. [the USA still had a draft and the Cold War was very warm indeed] Never mind that the military already HAD ways of training in the "radio arts." It just says "pool of trained operators". Nothing about the Morse code or military draft or other services. Does national defense or the various aid agencies NEED amateurs who are "trained" in DX contesting and sitting around telling old war stories about when Kode Vas King? I don't think so. Does anyone NEED alleged retired nonamateurs who are "trained" in telling old war stories about their nonamateur exploits of fiftyplus years ago? (snip) And public service. (snip) I'm not aware of the use of code by any of the typical served agencies (Red Cross, MARS, and so on). Morse code use will keep out the eveavsdropers and bad people from the content of communications, thus not letting them know the deep dark, very secret ways of the ham. Secure. Watch out for those "eveavsdropers"!!! So I've been told. It seems sometimes that no one can tell you anything, Len. ;-) (snip) Besides, everything hams do is either "for enjoyment" or public service. Does that mean none of it should be tested? Huh? I thought I was fairly clear about all this. Code was once necessary for the goals and purposes outlined in 97.1. At the very least, that is much less so today (some would say it is not at all so today). That severely weakens the justification for a unique license requirement. If the license requirement is actually removed, code will then be tested on an equal footing with the other operating modes (written theory). Nothing in that is an argument for or against testing anything else. Holier-than-thou old-timers just can't live with that, Dwight! You are a holier-than-thou old-timer, Len. FCC "must" keep the "tradition" of morsemanship! shrug Are you Atlas? LHA |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Noise and Loops Question | Antenna | |||
| Stacking Distance Question. More Information | Antenna | |||
| Stupid question G5RV | Antenna | |||
| QEI INC. QUINDAR RADIO UNIT TELEMETRY QUESTION got from hamfest | General | |||
| Question about attenuators ... | Antenna | |||
Threaded Mode
