wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was
riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the
roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot
dash.....di dah.

Dan/W4NTI

Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and
tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch!

You cross posting fart. ;)


Cross posting fart

you continue to chase him and do the same thing your crying to him about
......Loser

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:20:53 -0600, Rod Anderson wrote:

Sorry Dan you and the ARRL forgot to consider the affect of Americans
with Disabilities law, The only reason that the courts have not
thrown out the code requirement is the international treaty required
it, the treaty overuled US laws.

Keep believing that myth....I have a bridge for sale, too.

The only reasons that the courts have not thrown out the code
requirement a

(1) a case has never been brought (Federal courts do not issue
advisory rulings, they require an actual case) because:

(2) FCC requires that suitable accommodations be made for an
applicant's observable or claimed disabilities when tests which do
not otherwise discrimninate are given, and

(3) the Federal courts in a matter such as this require that the
plaintiff exhaust all administrative appeals and in general they
defer to the judgment of the regulatory agencies in the area of the
agency's expertise such as the requirements for a license as long as
the requirements are equitably applied and reasonable accommodations
(see #2 above) are made.

Shortly after the US ratifies the
new treaty which no longer requires the ability to send and receive
code the US courts will throw out the FCC's code requirement.

Nah... even if such a case is brought, any regulatory attorney worth
his/her salt can tie it up pending FCC action in its own sweet time.

The
courts take a dim view of irrelevant requiremnts, you are going to
have a a hard time convincing the courts that ability to receive code
at 5 wpm is necessary requirement to "talk over the radio".

See #3 above.

Morse has much in common with the use of the sliderule. 40 years ago
when I was in school engineers spent several weeks of class studying
the use of the sliderule and logarithms to simplify calculations.

Maybe in your school. In my engineering school - one of the top 3
in the US - one had to know how to use both the sliderule and log
tables in order to be admitted, which for me was 50 years ago next
month....

I have better ways to spend my time than studying Morse code but I
still can find the power of a number using a log log slide rule

K+E Log Log Duplex Vector -- I take it out once a year to prove to
my computer-geek son that I can still do it.....

But as to communications law....leave that to us attorney
specialists. This is MY field.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Registered Professsional Engineer

Principal Attorney
Communications Law Center
San Francisco, CA

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron.

Dan/W4NTI

Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole.

--
GO# 40

OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime
I damn well want.

Dan/W4NTI

You act like a 9 year old punk.

--
GO# 40

Let me try and help you moron. I don't give a rats ass what you think.
Clear?

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:20:53 -0600, Rod Anderson wrote:

Sorry Dan you and the ARRL forgot to consider the affect of Americans
with Disabilities law, The only reason that the courts have not
thrown out the code requirement is the international treaty required
it, the treaty overuled US laws.

Keep believing that myth....I have a bridge for sale, too.

The only reasons that the courts have not thrown out the code
requirement a

(1) a case has never been brought (Federal courts do not issue
advisory rulings, they require an actual case) because:

(2) FCC requires that suitable accommodations be made for an
applicant's observable or claimed disabilities when tests which do
not otherwise discrimninate are given, and

(3) the Federal courts in a matter such as this require that the
plaintiff exhaust all administrative appeals and in general they
defer to the judgment of the regulatory agencies in the area of the
agency's expertise such as the requirements for a license as long as
the requirements are equitably applied and reasonable accommodations
(see #2 above) are made.

Shortly after the US ratifies the
new treaty which no longer requires the ability to send and receive
code the US courts will throw out the FCC's code requirement.

Nah... even if such a case is brought, any regulatory attorney worth
his/her salt can tie it up pending FCC action in its own sweet time.

The
courts take a dim view of irrelevant requiremnts, you are going to
have a a hard time convincing the courts that ability to receive code
at 5 wpm is necessary requirement to "talk over the radio".

See #3 above.

Morse has much in common with the use of the sliderule. 40 years ago
when I was in school engineers spent several weeks of class studying
the use of the sliderule and logarithms to simplify calculations.

Maybe in your school. In my engineering school - one of the top 3
in the US - one had to know how to use both the sliderule and log
tables in order to be admitted, which for me was 50 years ago next
month....

31 years ago, when I entered EE school, everyone knew how to use a sliderule.
It was not required, just expected. No class time was spent learning how to use
one.
I have better ways to spend my time than studying Morse code but I
still can find the power of a number using a log log slide rule

K+E Log Log Duplex Vector -- I take it out once a year to prove to
my computer-geek son that I can still do it.....

But as to communications law....leave that to us attorney
specialists. This is MY field.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Registered Professsional Engineer

Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical waivers were
the result of ADA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 31 Jul 2003 02:21:06 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical
waivers were the result of ADA.

How soon we forget...maybe we ought to replace the Element 1 Morse
test with an Element 1 amateur radio history test...

Off the top of my head.....

In days of yore when George I reigned in Washington, some amateur
in Pennsylvania could not pass the 13 wpm test as hard as he tried.
So one day whilst in QSO with JY1, he mentioned that what ham radio
in the USA really needed more than anything else was a mechanism for
him to get an upgraded license without passing the higher speed code
test because he had (alleged) medical problems that (allegedly)
precluded him from dealing with Morse code above 5 wpm.

So when next in QSO with George I, JY1 said (in essence) "Georgie,
if you want to quarter your troops in my country - JY1 being King
Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon - do my dear friend a
favor and let him get an upgraded ham license with no higher-speed
code test".

So George I summoned the Chairman of the FCC ("Mad Man Mark" Fowler
or Al "Who the heck is he" Sykes - forget which) to his oval chamber,
clapped his hands like the Pasha does in the movies, and said "do it".

"So it was written, so it was done."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
.org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:



False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for
the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously,
you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the
acceptability of the proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

w3rv


You don't get it, do you?

I get it to the point where if I was a nocode I sure as hell would not
be stupid enough to dial up FCC Laurel and tell them to listen for me
on 7.125 Mhz and dare them to write me up "'Cause the ITU sez I'm
suddenly "legal" and you guys and yer 5wpm test nonsense don't count
now".

.. . .

Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have
access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do
this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems
could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the
rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is
what, I seriously doubt that they care.

QED. Loop closed.

w3rv

The training CD's aren't bad for practicing the code if you know the code
and just want to get better. The real situation is that a person needs to
still learn the code in the beginning. It would the same as if I was
listening to Chinese language and didn't know a word of the Chinese language
versus knowing the language on a basic level and listening to Radio China or
something like that......


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
C wrote:
No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.


Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out
I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out
random groups or even makes up QSO's.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message .org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:

False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for the
"international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously, you will
have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the acceptability of the
proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

If that were true, then where is the requirement to have "element 1 credit" in
47 CFR 97.301(e)? I don't see it anywhere in the text!

PS: "Law" usually refers to STATUTE, not agency regulation. The procedures
for the creation of each are quite different.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

You couldn't be more wrong! I have not attempted to twist this into an "OR."
The originator of the thread, who professed that no-code technicians can now
operate HF, is the one who needs this to be an "OR." I clearly have argued
that "AND" means "AND" - i.e. BOTH conditions cited are necessary to be met.
What I have said is that the second condition is now IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET as it
is currently stated, and thus Technicians and Novices LOST THEIR HF PRIVILEGES.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

Element 1 credit is NOT a requirement for 47 CFR 97.301(e). Compliance with
the non-existent international regulation is.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

Which you seem to lack, since you are substituting one requirement for another,
but there's no provision elsewhere in the regulations to do so.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
.org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:

False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for
the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously,
you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the
acceptability of the proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

w3rv


You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements_"

(_emphasis_added_).

The phrase "international requirements" is a clear reference to s25.5,
which now makes code testing optional for each administration, such as the
FCC. The code requirement for access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies appears
nowhere except in rule 301(e), which in turn only refers back to the
optional language in s25.5. If the FCC refer to the international
regulations for the code requirement, and it says there that it is
optional, then where is the determination from the FCC as required under
s25.5 that code is required? Nowhere, that's where!

I agree with this analysis, but disagree with the conclusion stated below:

Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have
access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do
this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems
could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the
rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is
what, I seriously doubt that they care.

Mr. Palmer's conclusion is wrong. What we have is an "international
requirement" that cannot be complied with. That means that one of the
regulatory requirements set by the FCC is not met, NOR CAN IT BE MET by any
licensee. Since one of the conditions is impossible to meet, 47 CFR 97.301(e)
actually conveys NO PRIVILEGE AT ALL (effective July 5, 2003).

It's not that no-code technicians may operate HF. It's that coded-technicians
and novices may NOT operate on HF bands. Their privilege was automatically
STRIPPED by the FCC's regulation being dependent on the international one.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall determine
whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station
shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code
signals."

I concur. However, this section identifies an OPTION, not a requirement.

The administration has determined that the persons seeking a
license
must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test.

Not so fast. Where does it say that in respect of the Novice frequencies?

For novices, element 1 credit is a prerequisite per section 97.501. However,
for technicians, I agree that it is not.

3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with.

Who said there was? Maybe D Stussy, but his line of argument is truly
wierd

Maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't mean that my position is
incorrect.

47 CFR 97.301(e) indicates that the LICENSEE is to establish compliance with an
international requirement that has been revoked (and replaced with an option).

One cannot comply with a requirement that does not exist. Such is impossible.
This means that one of the requisite conditions is FAILED, and NO PRIVILEGE is
conveyed.

Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.

No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra

It certainly has NOT. It's a requirement per 47 CFR 97.501 for those license
classes.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm wrote:
You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the
Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated.

I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO
specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice
class licence.

Rules: You have obviously NOT been reading very carefully: 47 CFR 97.301(e).

As far as your potential conclusion that no-code technicians have HF privileges
now, that is clearly erroneous.

Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat
Shack ones suck for that too. There used to be publication of VHF
rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around
here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they
are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you
would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that
was important enough to rebroadcast.........



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

I still recommend W1AW over any of the "canned" aids. Two downsides of
course are that W1AW does not send Farnsworth and one needs a
half-decent HF rcvr.

http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked


You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it
all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important,
and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling
to get it all, it might all come easier.

w3rv






Michael VE2BVW

I would actually have to agree with Kim on this one. I have many times
asked (tactfully and politely) certain questions of blind hams as to their
experiences as hams dealing with the loss of sight as it relates to the
hobby. They were definitely helpful and supportive in "educating" me to
their circumstances. A definite thank you at the end of the questions with
an explanation that I was trying to understand what it is like to be in
their shoes definitely helped.



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


Keith, why don't you solicit the opinions of some deaf hams? There is a
group called HandiHams that you could ask--if they would respond. You
could
also get on eHam.net, and qrz.com and pose the question in the forums.
The
question, I suppose, would be: Do you, as a deaf ham, agree that the
government should require that you pass a minimum CW requirement for
amateur
radio privileges at that level?

My guess is most deaf hams are not going to mind a bit. Note that I said
*most.* I am sure there are some out there that may object.

Kim W5TIT


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

A completely different issue I had and/or have is not the speed as much as
the audio pitch of the code being sent. It's hard as hell to get a VE team
to adjust the pitch/tone sound at all if they even bother to send with a
key. Hell, a couple of them are only using premade CD's, which are played a
fixed rate and since most VE's are not frivolous (at all), they usually only
have a "basic" cd player, and would not have equipment capable of code at a
lower tone but keeping the same speed.

I say this because my hearing loss makes me hear "normally" sent code at its
"proper" pitch rate as one long solid tone, as if you placed a finger on a
straight key and never lifted up at all while sending. In other words, if
there was a 2 minute QSO in morse code being sent at its "normal" pitch, it
sounds like a 2 minute long T to me. If I lower the frequency of the tone
of the amount of at least 200-250hz less, to where it starts becoming a more
rich, bass(y) sounding tone, then I can distinguish the difference between a
dit and a dah.

On a lighter note, I think my ex-wife had a voice in the same range as being
sent at most VE sessions...... she said I never listened to her!


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
All I ask for is to know what speed I need to be studying as it all
sounds different to me at each speed....


Don't email. TELEPHONE them. Ask them what is the character speed and
what
is the overall word speed. They can have the character speed at 13 (or
faster), but the spacing must be adjusted to end up at 5wpm overall. It
is
not proper test procedure to have the test at an actual 13wpm when it is
supposed to be 5wpm.

Talk to the VE team leader that you will eventually be testing under so
that
you do get the correct character speed for the test that you will be
planning to take.

Finally try to find someone who is knowledgeable in correct training
methods
to "Elmer" you if at all possible.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 31 Jul 2003 02:21:06 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical
waivers were the result of ADA.

How soon we forget...

I didn't forget. NCVEC obviously did.

maybe we ought to replace the Element 1 Morse
test with an Element 1 amateur radio history test...

Off the top of my head.....

In days of yore when George I reigned in Washington, some amateur
in Pennsylvania could not pass the 13 wpm test as hard as he tried.
So one day whilst in QSO with JY1, he mentioned that what ham radio
in the USA really needed more than anything else was a mechanism for
him to get an upgraded license without passing the higher speed code
test because he had (alleged) medical problems that (allegedly)
precluded him from dealing with Morse code above 5 wpm.

So when next in QSO with George I, JY1 said (in essence) "Georgie,
if you want to quarter your troops in my country - JY1 being King
Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon - do my dear friend a
favor and let him get an upgraded ham license with no higher-speed
code test".

So George I summoned the Chairman of the FCC ("Mad Man Mark" Fowler
or Al "Who the heck is he" Sykes - forget which) to his oval chamber,
clapped his hands like the Pasha does in the movies, and said "do it".

"So it was written, so it was done."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Was there an NPRM? Lawsuits based on ADA? Lots of discussion, comments and
counterproposals?

The world wonders

tnx, Phil

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm
for
one solid minute out of five. Oh well.

Dan/W4NTI

And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow...

You know Brian I don't give a rats ass if you believe me or not. Ask
ANYBODY that took it in the 70s and earlier.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan, sob stories can be true or false, really doesn't matter. But if
the exam is unnecessary, why tell your sob story?

Do you want sympathy?

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:40:42 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

PS: "Law" usually refers to STATUTE, not agency regulation. The
procedures for the creation of each are quite different.

In communications law practice, FCC regulations are considered "law"
for com,pliance and enforcement purposes. "Communications law"
includes treaties, statutes, regulations, and case precedcents.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

wrote in message
...

Which group is he in? I know it's not rec.radio.cb, and I know his
drivel has no purpose here. Leg humper.

--
GO# 40

I am not sure cross post to all of them so you can be more of a hypocrite...
assclown

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Dick Carroll; wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote:
What I have said is that the second condition is now IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET as it
is currently stated, and thus Technicians and Novices LOST THEIR HF PRIVILEGES.

I believe you'll find plenty of legal precedent that says in such a case existing regulation prevails until such time
as it can be rewritten to eliminate any ambiguity. There's a practical reason for this of course. Otherwise chaos would
reigh.

There is no ambiguity here. There was direct dependence on a regulation
external to that of the FCC's. Unless you're implying that the FCC's
regulation itself was ambiguous or improper (for referring to an outside body
of law, treaty, international agreement, etc.; something outside of its
control), I don't see a problem.

It certainly does NOT work that way with 26 CFR and 31 CFR regulations so I
have no expectation that 47 CFR regulations would. In those contexts, changes
to the law (i.e. statute) immediately void regulations when those changes
become effective (usually defined as "For years beginning on or after date").

wrote in message
...
"Cool Breeze" WA3MOJ Georgeie wrote:
wrote in message
...

It's clear that you don't care about anything but yourself, and you're
still a cross-posting idiot.

--
GO# 40

So are you assclown.

Here's for you and Dan.

http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/



Yawn, your still a cross posting queer.

Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in :



Alun Palmer wrote:


You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements _"



You are taking what is an aside, and basing your whole argument
on it.
Won't work.

This argument doesn't work on enough levels that it is surprising
that
anyone would use it.

1. My first remark about the very secondary nature of the "in
accordance with....."



That is the strongest argument against it, i.e. is it a condition? It
may not be, but this is the first post to attack that point


2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall
determine whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an
amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive
texts in Morse code signals."

Do you agree that this is the reworded article 25.5?



Yes


The administration has determined that the persons seeking a
license must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test.


Not so fast. Where does it say that in respect of the Novice
frequencies?


Until it changes it's requirements, it will continue.


3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with.



Who said there was? Maybe D Stussy, but his line of argument is truly
wierd

Yeah, reading his argument makes me dizzy.


4. Morse code testing is not abolished. Individual administrations now
make that call- to test, or not to test.



Yes, but have they actually made it in respect of those particular
frequencies? I'm not sure that they have.


Since many contries have individual bending of the rules, (US
technician, Japanese Low power HF as examples, there is already
evidence of some modification of the rules. This of course complicaes
matters.

So we are left with starting from the premise that we or whatever
country is in initial compliance. That initial compliance is dated from
the day before the rule change.

This to me says that the present state is in compliance, even
though
the requirement for the Morse test has been modified.

I certainly understand your argument.

Yes, I beleive you do now. I think we are at least 'on the same page'.

But when situations like
this
crop up, and one rule interferes with another, those who would be
called on to make a ruling have to make it with the concept of the
spirit of the rule, plus they have to make rulings that do not throw
the institution into chaos.



Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or
otherwise.

I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no-
coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be
detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually
no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it
permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem
go away!



Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.


No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra


- Mike KB3EIA -


73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat
Shack ones suck for that too.

Amen, don't even think about one of those turkeys. One advantage I/we
had back then was a profusion of quite inexpensive but usable HF rcvrs
which are not available today. Mostly military surplus gear and some
commercial cheapies like the Hallicrafters S-38. In this respect maybe
we had it much easier than the newbies today have.

There used to be publication of VHF
rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around
here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they
are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you
would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that
was important enough to rebroadcast.........

Too much work. Plus once VHF comes into play CW becomes a no-interest
thing. We've had sporadic attempts around here to get 2M code practice
sessions going but they didn't last very long.


Ryan, KC8PMX

w3rv

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

When I studied for my earliest tests there were no consumer-level
recording methods let alone computers. My only options for practicing
Morse were having somebody hand-send it or copying it off the air.
Which, as a practical matter, meant copying it with a rcvr or forget
it.

Exactly, and with my old ARC 5 receiver you NEVER heard only one signal, the thing was wide open and you
had to pick out which signal you wanted to copy and learn to ignor ethe rest. Sure was good training, I
developed a very
good 'internal filter' at the outset and still retain that skill.

Yessir. Ya had to learn operating skills along with learning just the
code. Whether ya wanted to or not. There was no "pause" button on W1AW
and ya couldn't replay it either.

I saw some *really* off-the-wall Novice rcvrs. One buddy of mine
comandeered an old wooden case Philco BC/SW rcvr which didn't have a
BFO. Musta had a 15 Khz "bandwidth". So he copied the thumps the
speaker cranked out. Some time later he managed to pick up a
half-working grid-dipper and tuned the dipper just off the sides of
the incoming signals and viola, hetrodynes he could copy. As long as
he had his mitts on both tuning knobs. I came along and had a
brainfart. I fished an insulated wire down inside the last IF can and
wound the other end loosely around the GDO coil and tuned the GDO to
455 kHz. Instant BFO. He took it one step further yet and added a
gawdawful narrow passive surplus audio filter and cruised all over
40M with that lashup. The homebrewed TX was another Rube Golberg gem,
some xtal oscillator tube driving a 6146, all of it in a cigar box.

Imagine any nocode even considering jumping thru those hoops just to
get on the air.

The upside was that the Novice bands were absolutely packed with slowspeed code and finding lots of
practice was no problem. You also learned to copy the many and varied 'fists', it was all hand sent, no
one had a keyer, though some used bugs. That provided another experience which developed lifetime
skills that no one today gets. I still enjoy copying hand sent or bug sent code, unless it's *really*
butchered.

Absolutely correct. It goes farther than that though.

As much as a pain in the butt as those days were in a number of
respects that regime had a number of huge advantages over what is
available today to newbies. The Novice bands were actually a very
successful "support group", we had no options but to clump together
and work with each other toward the same objectives. We climbed all
over each other trying to get our speeds up and beat the one-year
clock on our drop-dead tickets.

Boy there was the incentive licensing move from Hell! But it worked
and the only bitching I ever heard was from a few of the OFs who
turned their noses up at the mere thought of allowing newbies to get
on the HF bands with a lousy 5wpm code test. Turned out to be a
non-sequeter for them 'cause the FCC tossed us into our isolated
playpens 'way up the 80 & 40M bands where they didn't have to put up
with us. We *had* to work each other. Clever arrangement in
retrospect.

And in many if not most cases getting a Novice station took a bunch of
self-taught knowledge and work just to get on the air. All of which
were more learning experiences. One did not use a rubber-duckie or any
otjer catalog antennas on 80 . . autotuners . . as if . . digital
*nothing* . .

No doubt a dumb-down proponent or two will scan this diatribe and get
some giggles out of the ramblings of another stuck-in-the-past grouchy
OF. But in the end who will be the **real** losers?

Yeah, there's a "cultural gap", fuggem all, I hope they get just
exactly they want.


I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW
code practice sessions.

It's probaby the best training resource around if one owns a receiver, especially after one has learned
basic Morse.

Yup. Lotta newbies have used zero-cost borrowed rcvrs. I'd loan one of
my "spares" to anybody who was genuinely interested in copying W1AW.
I "loaned" my old HQ-120 to the kid accross the street, he then loaned
it some other kid . . . I have no idea wher it finally landed.


Today they transmit computer-generated code
and back then I believe they used tape-generated code so it has always
been quite precise. I'll concede that I'm only around 150 miles from
the station so they boom here on 80M and QRM wasn't/isn't a problem.
Might be more difficult from the west coasts but I don't know.

I've heard them one one band or another everywhere in the USA
that I've listened for them including out on the west coast.

Good. Then they do have big coverage.

w3rv

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

When I studied for my earliest tests there were no consumer-level
recording methods let alone computers. My only options for practicing
Morse were having somebody hand-send it or copying it off the air.
Which, as a practical matter, meant copying it with a rcvr or forget
it.

Same here. Except I had to build the receiver, learn to use it, then find hams
to listen to.

I sure built my share of rcvrs. At least in my case finding the ham
bands didn't seem to be much of an issue and there wasn't much to
learn about how to use 'em. Under any conditions I'd rather try to
find 40 with one of those than I would the first time I sit down in
front of any of the current riceboxes. Heh.

Did not know W1AW existed when I was studying for Novice so I
listened to other hams.

I probably "got around" more than you did and I did a lot of "radio"
before I finally went for my Novice ticket. Early tinkering & tuning
led me to working on my Boy Scout Merit Badge. Which was basically an
ARRL publication and everything a newbie needed to know about W1AW
code practice sessions was in the Radio Merit Badge booklet. I still
remember buying it from the Boy Scout department in the Lit Brothers
store at the bottom of the Hill. They special-ordered it for me.

I was also all over the Red Arrow, PTC and PRR commuter lines at a
tender age. The newsstand in the PTC waiting room in 69th Street
Terminal stocked 73 and CQ and occasionally QST. I always scarfed one
of 'em up if I had enough pocket change. I picked up a lotta info from
those long before I got my ticket. Then there were my ham buddies in
UDHS. By the time I actually got on the air I was pretty well primed.

I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW
code practice sessions. Today they transmit computer-generated code
and back then I believe they used tape-generated code so it has always
been quite precise. I'll concede that I'm only around 150 miles from
the station so they boom here on 80M and QRM wasn't/isn't a problem.
Might be more difficult from the west coasts but I don't know.

W6OWP used to do west-coast runs but I think that has ended. The antenna farm
used for code practice and bulletins at W1AW is designed to blanket the USA on
all bands. Full legal limit into long Yagis aimed at the West Coast on all
bands where a Yagi is practical.

Dick sez they have good coverage of the west coast.

I still recommend W1AW over any of the "canned" aids. Two downsides of
course are that W1AW does not send Farnsworth and one needs a
half-decent HF rcvr.

W1AW DOES send Farnsworth at the slower speeds! And they've done so since
before I ever heard of them - 35+ years. I think they transition at 13 or 15
wpm.

They definitely did not use Fransworth back when I was getting
started. I wish they had. Once I got my General it was goodbye W1AW
code practice for years until I went back to clock myself at 25-30wpm
for the Extra in the same timeframe in which you were getting started.

Bulletins are sent at 18 wpm so there's even more practice.

One drawback/advantage of W1AW is that it is sent on a fixed schedule. If you
simply cannot be at the rx at the appointed time, you're outa luck. OTOH,
having a fixed preset practice time tends to help some folks actually DO IT
rather than talk about it.

W1AW has plenty of sessions per week, I dunno, I seldom had any
particular trouble making myself available for the evening sessions.

Another trick I've done for years: Have the rx on and tuned to a CW station
whenever possible. I used to do homework with the cans on and tuned to a CW
station - any station - as background. After a while it became like listening
to somebody talk.

No way. I can't obsess in two directions at the same time . . !

http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
...
Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or
otherwise.

AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that "wierd" thing I
said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the "sunset."

I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no-
coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be
detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually
no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it
permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem
go away!

It doesn't make it permissible. What it did is REVOKE the authority for those
Novices/Techs to operate on HF at all. The problem STILL GOES AWAY because NO
ONE has the privilege. The FCC doesn't have to worry about who's has a
Technician Plus legacy license, a renewed Technician (with code credit), or a
Technician with code credit in hand (that they don't know about) - it doesn't
matter; Technicians (and Novices) don't have any HF privileges anymore. "The
sun has set."

[This also explains why Tech Plussers received Technician licenses upon
renewal. The license class, and now its privilege, has been disposed of in a
very seripticious, systemic manner.]

Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.

No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra

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

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for
me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were
in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists
and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT

That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all other
ham radio knowledge.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change
for
me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead
of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code
practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become
so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying
on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session
in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they
were
in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with
an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable
in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists
and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some
of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT

That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all
other
ham radio knowledge.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one
right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much more
stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue of
agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the
right answers are right.

By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse
style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change
for
me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead
of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code
practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have
become
so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are
relying
on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test
session
in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they
were
in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code
with
an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not
adjustable
in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy
fists
and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some
of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT

That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all
other
ham radio knowledge.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one
right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much
more
stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue
of
agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the
right answers are right.

By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse
style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment.

Kim W5TIT



Again your logic is faulty. The code test administration environment is
stable. The pitch is predefined. The speed is predefined. The tapes or
CDs are made using computer generated code, thus all the spacing is correct
and stable. In other words, at the test, one is listening to perfect code
and then there is only one right answer. It is even more perfect than the
written tests since some of those answers are a bit if you've actually
studied and learned the theory rather than memorizing questions and answers.

In both instances, code and written, the person is to pass the test and then
improve their abilities in the real world.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...


Since were on a trip down memory lane. This is how I received my FIRST HAM
SIGNAL.

I had a 6 transistor jap radio. I started 'tweeking' the coils and heard
this booming CQ CQ CQ this is W*xx.....He was down the street on the next
block.

There ya go! How many variations on that theme do ya wanna guess have
been played out?

I got my first dose by landing on 75M with one of the old
floor-mounted living room multiband wooden console radios owned by a
couple of old maid aunts. Was around the time of the broadcast of the
atom bomb tests on Bikini atoll.

Its been downhill eversince

As if!

Dan/W4NTI

w3rv

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one
right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much more
stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue of
agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the
right answers are right.

By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse
style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment.

Not at all!

The accomodations available in the code test are similar to accomodations
available in the written test. For example, if someone has limited vision, the
written might be printed in large plain easy-to-read text like 48 point Arial
rather than 10 point Times New Roman. Blind people might take the test in
Braille or aurally. People with limited mobility might use various devices to
fill out the answer sheet, or verbalize their answers rather than writing them.


Because the written tests are not timed, a written test can take anywhere from
a few minutes to hours.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?


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

Arrangements for a different tone have to be made in advance so that
they
have time to obtain a CD or tape of the needed pitch from the VEC. You
can't just drop into a test session and expect them to have anything
different than the commonly used tone.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




Not sure if a "code key/Oscillator" applies here, but if a person needs to
have special testing done, the rules I"ve seen written state that the
examinee is the one who must furnaish the equipment to the VEs in which to
use to accomidate that persons handicap. Perhaps the VEs didn't have one.
Not every one does.
JMS

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on
the
code CD's and tapes.

It's certainly possible, but in this day and age, I could see
prospective amateur one complaining that the custom test was too easy or
too hard, or complaining that he or she wanted to take the test from a
CD instead of a real person, or some other such.

Almost all of us can handle the standard test methods.


The rest can be accomodated for.

Over the course of my testing, I took tests at 4 different places:
Williamsport PA, Butler PA, State College PA, and Lock Haven PA. ALL the
VE teams were extremely helpful and accomodating. Those who knew of my
hearing problem when I took Element 1 (twice, cuz I flunked the first
time) were just great. The first time I took the test, they were more
bothered by my failing it than I was, and the second time, I spoke to
one of the VE's beforehand, and he outlined the different methods I
might use, and explained the lengths they were capable of going to to
accomodate my needs.

I just want to point this out, because the tone of you letter sounds
like you think that VE's are some sort of ossified "my way or the
highway" people. They aren't.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I can say this.. I HAVE seen some VEs who were real *******s. Not wanting to
help anyone. But I've seen those too, who helped all as much as they could.
However, my former comment still stands, according to the rules I've read,
if an applicant is handicapped and requires special equipment to use in
testing, it is THEIR responsibility to provide it for the VEs to use. It is
NOT the VEs place to provide it. There is a comment though I'd like to make
about the My way or the Highway when it comes to testing. It is "supposed"
to be required of the VEs to afford the candidates the best possible
conditions in which to examine. IF someone in the waiting or even an
applicant his/herself starts making it miserable for the others OR even
before hand if the applicant fails to provide all required documentation,
the VEs have a right to evict them from the area. JMS

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality,
morse
style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment.

Kim W5TIT



Again your logic is faulty. The code test administration environment is
stable. The pitch is predefined. The speed is predefined. The tapes or
CDs are made using computer generated code, thus all the spacing is
correct
and stable. In other words, at the test, one is listening to perfect code
and then there is only one right answer. It is even more perfect than the
written tests since some of those answers are a bit if you've actually
studied and learned the theory rather than memorizing questions and
answers.

In both instances, code and written, the person is to pass the test and
then
improve their abilities in the real world.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I've sat for more than a few CW tests. And, I've known people who have the
same experience as I. It's been different every time. It depends upon the
VE team and how they like to administer the test. I don't know what logic
has to do with it; but whatever.

Kim W5TIT


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

On 02 Aug 2003 20:21:11 GMT, N2EY wrote:

People with limited mobility might use various devices to
fill out the answer sheet, or verbalize their answers rather
than writing them.

Do you mean "oral"? "Verbal" includes both "written" and "oral".
The opposite of "verbal" is "graphic".

We get that trick question in the first hour, first day of Law
School Contracts I regarding what's not worth the paper it's not
written on (which is not true - except in specific instances where
the law requires that a contract be in writing, an oral contract can
be as enforceable as a written contract).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 02 Aug 2003 20:21:11 GMT, N2EY wrote:

People with limited mobility might use various devices to
fill out the answer sheet, or verbalize their answers rather
than writing them.

Do you mean "oral"?

DOH!!!!

"Verbal" includes both "written" and "oral".
The opposite of "verbal" is "graphic".

We get that trick question in the first hour, first day of Law
School Contracts I regarding what's not worth the paper it's not
written on (which is not true - except in specific instances where
the law requires that a contract be in writing, an oral contract can
be as enforceable as a written contract).

HAW! My bad!

Perfect example of why legal stuff is written the way it is, rather than in
'plain English regular people can understand'. Of course the fact that 'regular
people' can understand the same 'plain English' sentence several different
conflicting ways is conveniently forgotten.

Point is, there are plenty of accomodations possible for both the written and
code tests.

--

Phil has probably seen this many times, but for the rest of us:

From the book "Disorder in the Court":

Last one is the corker

73 de Jim, N2EY
________________________________________
Q: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
Q: What year?
A: Every year
_______________________________________
Q: What gear were you in at moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
_________________________________________
Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something you've forgotten?
__________________________________________
Q: How old is your son, the one living with you.
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.
_________________________________________
Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that
morning?
A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Q: And why did that upset you?
A: My name is Susan.
_________________________________________
Q: And where was the location of the accident?
A: Approximately milepost 499.
Q: And where is milepost 499?
A: Probably between milepost 498 and 500.
_________________________________________
Q: Sir, what is your IQ?
A: Well, I can see pretty well, I think.
_________________________________________
Q: Did you blow your horn or anything?
A: After the accident?
Q: Before the accident.
A: Sure, I played for 10 years. I even went to school for it.
_________________________________________
Q: Trooper, when you -stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights
flashing?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did she say?
A: "What disco am I at?"
_________________________________________
Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't
know about it until the next morning?
_________________________________________
Q: The youngest son, the 20-year old, how old is he?
_________________________________________
Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?
_________________________________________
Q: So the date of conception of (the baby) was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?
_________________________________________
Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there any girls?
_________________________________________
Q: You say the stairs went down to the basement?
A: Yes.
Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?
_________________________________________
Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?
_________________________________________
Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male or a female?
_________________________________________
Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice that I
sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
_________________________________________
Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
_________________________________________
Q: All your responses must be oral, OK?
What school did you go to?
A: Oral.
_________________________________________

On 03 Aug 2003 13:15:58 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Phil has probably seen this many times, but for the rest of us:

From the book "Disorder in the Court":

Last one is the corker

Love it...... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane