On 01 Sep 2003 20:04:45 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

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

Carl - wk3c


How many Cbplussers International, I mean NCI are Members?

Answering a question with a question is no answer at all.

On 2 Sep 2003 14:41:13 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

How do you justify a trained group of communicators that are versed in
a mode that is as useful and needed as CW is? There isn't an emergency
right now.

It's especially hard when the emergency management agencies have
no use for a cadre of CW ops ... it's not the type of communications
that they want or need.

KT4ST has shown that to be untrue.

One person's opinion ... and a person who clearly has a pro-Morse bias
from his ham perspective. He's the ONLY EMS person I've EVER heard
from who seriously considered Morse a truly valuable and necessary part
of emergency communications, and I've been involved in emergency
communications for over 25 years.

However, with all due respect, Carl, I don't
think you'd be the most effective salesman for the mode...

It's not my job to be a salesman for Morse ... that's up to the people
who like Morse and care to promote its use ... but they shouldn't
insist on a govt. enforced "recruiting program" (which as I have pointed
out is, in my view, actually counter-productive as it turns more against
Morse than it "sells").


Just as the CW NTS nets are anachronisms ...

What about SSB NTS nets? Are they anachronisms?

A CW NTS net can handle more traffic in less time using less spectrum than
an
SSB NTS net. Been there, done that.

But let's face it ... most of the traffic handled via NTS is 1) of little/no
importance
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.

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

Carl - wk3c

Let's face it- Carl just hates Morse code, despite his many protests to the contrary.
It's really not that difficult to understand - after all, he hears all that digital data
flying past his ears and the old nternal modem just won't work on it! Ah, the pain! The
Frustration! The Agony!

You just can't help sympathyzing with his plight. The ONLY way for him to find relief is
to slay that dreaded dragon under the bed.....

Well, that was a well thought our and logical rebuttal in a falicious
kind of way. If a more logical argument than that can't be made,
don't be suprised if the FCC doesn't agree with your proposal.

On 02 Sep 2003 01:20:59 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

What do they do for an encore?

Put out a list of 10 Codes

Very effective rebuttal. So, you do have some type of supporting
documentation that the group advocates the use of 10 codes, don't you?
Otherwise, I would have to think that you are avoiding the central
issue and that makes your position look very weak.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:37:16 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


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

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....


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


Enjoy!


I thought that FISTS sold themselves as a non-political club?

How is sending in a petition a political act? Does that mean when NCI
sent
in a petition it was political? Or perhaps they were simply following
proceedures.

Of course participating in the regulatory process is a "political"
thing.

And yes, FIST's position in the past (and IIRC, their charter) was
that they were *not* a politically-oriented group ... just a group that
was supposed to foster the *use* of Morse.

Right. So where NCI is purposely a politically-oriented group, and
behaves accordingly, FISTS is specifically a non-political group who
is now behaving politically.

Why don't we hear any whining about how FISTS has broken with their
charter from the people that are always whining about NCI?

Usual PCTA double-standard?

Not only a dumb ass, but a knee jerk bleeding heart liberal to boot.

Dan/W4NTI

Another logical rebuttal I see. Is the pro code postion this weak or
does it just attract people who can't make effective rebuttals?

On 03 Sep 2003 02:19:59 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Talk about a dumb ass. He combines Bruce's stupidity with reckless
statements.


Dumb Ass is someone who lets NCI dictate to them what they can and cant say

How do they do this?

On 4 Sep 2003 01:38:06 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"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.


Neither is government support for a lamebrained attitude that labels "stuck in the past"
as a description of radiotelegraphy on ham radio. Try actually tuning around the CW
portions and you soon see how current CW is.

Carl, you're beginning to sound like one of the Three Stooges on a stuck record - if
anyone her remembers what that is. It's "old" too, but still one of the most effective of
descriptives.

If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

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.

The important question is "how many active US hams" are members. Comparing the
total number in one group with the number of active US hams in another is
slanted.

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

Good question! And we're still waiting for an answer.

We're not asking for names or calls, just the number of US licensed hams who
are members. Anyone can determine the FISTS numbers. Why is NCI so secretive
about theirs - particularly if the numbers don't really matter?

I recall reading here a statement by Carl that those in the minority should
learn to take 'no' for an answer and get on with life. (Those are HIS words,
not mine).

What if it turned out (as it did in 1998-99) that the NCI position is a
minority opinion?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"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 ...

If you have an optimized receiver and suitable conditions, maybe - depends on
what you determine to be "equivalent data rates".

But hams don't do slow-HF-BFSK. 60 wpm FSK Baudot RTTY is about the most basic
data mode still in use by hams.

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.

That all depends on the equipment in use. Using a receiver optimized for one
mode in an attempt to receive another may or may not be a good idea.

What mode do you use most on HF, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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.

Then why do have so many rules, regulations and laws protecting historic and
natural sites?

Why do we use "English" measurement units instead of metric?

Why are QWERTY keyboards still the standard even though Dvorak has been shown
to be superior?

What is and is not " a legitimate regulatory purpose or role" is purely a
matter of opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..



If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.

w3rv