So you have no rational argument for the retention of code testing?



None that you would understand

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I've explained out committment to our members' privacy. If FISTS
doesn't have the same policy, that's their choice, and thus, you could
have answered my question without breaching any confidence. I can't
do the same because of the committment we have made to our members.


Can't you think of a better reason? Let's say there are 5000 members of
NCI.

Explain how saying There are 5000 members of NCI is violating anyones
privacy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

Bull****, Prove it.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an
irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active.


No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support
your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the
PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational,
compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing).

What do they do for an encore?


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in
the head of the beholder.

Why do you do people a disservice by suggesting otherwise?

I have read both documents, and find the NCI and FISTS proposals
equally rational and compelling.


In the end, it all comes down to what a person **believes**. And that
is not rational. Not in your case, not in mine. And too much of the
"belief" business and it turns into religion, which some PCTA'ers have
been accused of. It all works both ways.

Propping up a "belief system" ("tradition", etc. ... all the things that
keep
things stuck in the past) is NOT a legitimate regulatory purpose or role.

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

... most of the traffic handled via NTS is

1) of little/no importance

To whom? And you'd allege that there is no other possibility ? Sure
sounds like it. You
*should* know that even health and welfare traffic is important to the
mission of the ARS, as it not only relieves worried families etc but also
gies important
exposure to the capabilities and mission of the ARS. Sorry you missed all
that.

and

2) much makes use of "coded messages" (sending a canned message number)

that would be of little use in an emergency situation where the
situation,
needs,
details would need to be spelled out in some detail.

N onsense bafflegab! Have you ever worked a *real* disaster/emergency of
any consequence?

Yes ... major earthquakes, forest (brush) fires, and the crash of a
commercial airliner
into a residential area in SoCal ... over many years. Hurricanes in
Florida, etc.
Often was NCS ...

Sure doesn't sound like it! And for your edification, the "canned"
mesages, right along
with prosigns and the many other CW shortcuts merely add
significantly to the efficiency of the mode.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Sorry, the "Morse is necessary for emergency communications" argument
doesn't hold water, and the FCC has already realized that.

BS! FCC has never made any statement even close to that, and WE all know
it.

YES THEY HAVE - from the R&O in WT Docket No. 98-143 ("restructuring")
- read it and weep:

31. We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is
one way to keep amateur radio operators ready to be of service in an
emergency. In this regard, we note that most emergency communication today
is performed using either voice, data, or video modes. We also note that
most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency communication
do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of
communication, in part, because information can be exchanged much faster
using these other modes of communication.[1] Further, we note that in
traditional emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is
no requirement that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses
or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in
determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide
emergency communications.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[1]See, e.g., The ARRL Letter, Volume 18, Number 7, at 3-4 (use of single
side band when Hams Help Staff Colombian Relief Call Center); Volume 17,
Number 13 at 3 (VHF repeaters use to assist tornado victims); Volume 18,
Number 4 at 1-3 (use of VHF 2 meter repeaters to assist Emergency Operations
center after tornado outbreak). See also Worldradio, February, 1999, at 6
(Salvation Army Emergency Team Radio Network (SATERN) maintaining a network
of stations on 14.265 MHz during Hurricane Mitch); and Newsline, Issue No.
1129, February 29, 1999 (communications for Colombian earthquake assistance
on 14.347 MHz using voice modes.)


One NEVER knows in advance what will be needed to deal with any unforseen
emergency/disaster.

That's why one should be prepared with spare gear, good plans, etc. so that
one does not have to rely on outdated methods ...

We all know that, and of course you do too, but it works against that
enigmatic agenda of yours.

Sorry, Dick, YOU'RE the one with the "enigmatic agenda" ... but the FCC
doesn't
buy it ...

Carl - wk3c

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't
a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer
(and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat
Dick" couldn't even begin to understand).

Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl.


Now Dick, how do you know that? No one knows except a person that isn't
telling.

- Mike KB3EIA -

If FISTS has 10k members, they do NOT have "many times the membership
numbers of NCI" ... the numbers would be something that Dick would hate
to imagine in worst twisted nightmare :-)

Carl - wk3c

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

I think total ellimination is equivilant to negotiations with a terrorist
organization (NCI).

Dan/W4NTI

I think that characterization is totally out of line and is equivalent to
the "law of usenet" that goes something like "the first one to equate
the other to Hitler automatically loses the argument."

Carl - wk3c

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
So you have no rational argument for the retention of code testing?



None that you would understand

I agree with Bruce ... no argument he could possibly present
would be coherent enough for any reasonably rational, intelligent
person to understand. :-)

Carl - wk3c

"S. Hanrahan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:57:23 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson"
wrote:


"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?

Carl - wk3c

Nearly 10,000.

Not all of them are users of code either. FISTS welcomes anybody,
unlike the NCI where you join "the cause to remove code requirements".

If you prefer to remove the code requirement, no one is forcing you do
unplug your keyer from your radio.

Stacey, AA7YA
FISTS #3857

Stacey,

That 10k number seems to fly in the face of facts ... but it really
doesn't matter, because it's the quality of the arguments presented
to the FCC that matters, and the FISTS petition, while well-written,
is lacking in a truly rational regulatory basis for maintaining ANY
Morse test requirement.

Carl - wk3c