Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.


It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the

PCTA's

feel the need for a government-sponsored support system.



NCI pettition is all opinion.


No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any

legitimate

need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how
the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the
ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for
a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc.,

etc.

The petition is chock-full of facts ...

Well, that's your opinion anyhow! 8^)

But seriously, if I could offer some advice. It is okay to have an
opinion. You have your's and I have mine.

It's even okay to try to turn your opinion into the law of the land. If
enough people agree, it will happen.

But there is a mistake of hubris in believing that ones own personal
opinion is fact.


How can citing FCC statements from public documents and quoting
law be considered "one's own personal opinion" ... again, the Petition
is "chock-full" of FACTS.

Sure, there are facts in it, but the core assumptions are opinions.
Take any paragraph that has "we believe" in it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
C'mon Charles,

Don't you realize, some people just are not happy unless they are bitching
about someone. And the others are the kind that like to watch others bitch.
Why do you think talk shows like Jerry Springer etc. do so well? This is
just another version in a different form. Do you honestly think that an
actual intelligent debate over a topic could actually occur here?

I told PCTA Kurt on here years ago, "a happy sailor is a bitching sailor."

"charlesb" wrote in message igy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

What a hypocrite.

You have been doing virtually the same crap on
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc for years... debating endlessly and
meaninglessly... bringing up a need to revive long dead HF-based PBBS
systems, and denouncing any attempts at modernization.

So - what brings you over here? Is it the fact that your ilk has run
everyone off rradm, and that you've got nobody to argue with there
anymore? (they've all moved on to more productive forums and
applications).

You and that kook from Oregon are just as thick-skulled as these
CODE-obsessed fruits... you BELONG here.

- Stewart

On 16 Aug 2003 08:44:00 -0700, N2EY wrote:

What did it take - six weeks? Not really long at all. Plus there was
always the chance FCC would have simply dumped Element 1 on its own,
instead of doing the whole NPRM thing.

Bill Cross (FCC) was heard to mumble that he wasn't sure that the
FCC could do so "on its own", so SOMEONE had to percuss the
pendulum, right ???

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(DickCarroll) wrote in message
. com...
(Brian) wrote in message
. com...
(DickCarroll) wrote in message
. com...

Brian:
There's 'life', then there's your perception of life. Most readers
here know
too well that the two are not congruent.

Perhaps there's still time for you to learn the difference.

DICK, I'm talking about you, not "most readers."

As per your usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then why did I start the sentence with "DICK?"

I think it's kind of a way of admitting he's a nothing and a nobody... :o

Kim W5TIT

"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible
for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was
wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked?

This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and
knowledge
of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full
compliance with the rules.

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts
and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

No, it's proficiency that the test measures ... proficiency in decoding
Morse
in one's head at some specified speed. And that's ALL it is according to
the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O
in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents).

The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse code
at a
very basic level.

Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency.


Element 1 is in no way a test of "proficiency". It's a skill test at a
very
basic level. To call it a proficiency test is to demonstrate ignorance of
the
word proficiency.

Proficiency is measured against some "yardstick" ... in the case of Morse,
the FCC has (currently) determined the yardstick to be 5 wpm.
You can argue all you want, but that's the way it is ...

Yet they wouldn't include a sunset clause back in 2000

True ... they didn't include a sunset clause.

and they're making all of us go through an NPRM cycle all over again.

How the FCC will handle this is yet to be determined ...

If FCC thinks there really is
"no regulatory purpose" to a code test, WHY are they dragging their feet
and
doing the whole circus AGAIN?

See my last sentence ...

[snipped unrelated discussion of BPL]

Carl - wk3c

WA3IYC wrote:

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

For example, consider base 10 natural number arithmetic

"2 + 2 = 4" is a fact.

"Addition is a mathematical operation in which two numbers are combined to get
a third number which is never less than either of the first two numbers" is a
concept.


Not quite. What if the numbers are 2 and -8? Negative numbers are
valid numbers.....
Mathematicians have fun with this sort of thing. Called "proofs", which
I never did
really understand in calculus class anyway.