Bob Brock wrote in message . ..

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 the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott.

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..

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 the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've
boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of
antiquated requirements.

On 04 Sep 2003 11:30:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


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

73 de Jim, N2EY

The passing of regulations outside the scope of the organization. Is
it your contention that the FCC is chartered to be an organization
that was formed to perserve our historic traditions? A cite from the
Communications Act would be nice if that's your postion.

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.

It isn't propping, it's part of the package. It's no tradition to me,
I'm just a nickle Extra, licensed since 1999. Its the same as learning
math basics and using calculators at the same time. its a basic and
simple method of communication that I BELIEVE is a very good thing to
know. You do NOT believe this. You believe that Morse code is an
anachronism, and has no place in the education required to be a ham.

I think you may also confuse belief with fact. You'll probably disagree
with that also.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"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 :-)


I guess we'll never know, though........

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"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.

It's the number that they put forth on their petition. If you can prove
they are not being accurate, that would shut them down pretty well......


And the supreme court yesterday must hav thought that the FCC's
decision process was a tad flawed.



- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:


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.

Not the point.



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?

WOW! After all your posts claiming how poor some members of this
group's arguments are you post that?


- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
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.

And still waiting. I can't figure out why that is such a troublesome thing.



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'm beginning to formulate an opinion on that. Probably the same one
you are.


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).

That is one of the polite things people say when what they really want
to say "SHUT UP and quit bothering me". Autocratics in action.

But just as it doesn't happen in politics, it doesn't happen here.
Would he have taken his own advice in the early days of NCI.


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

It doesn't take a majority. It takes noise.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Yeah the entire world of ham radio is going to gear up for disaster communications, keep
it all ready all the time. Never happen and ANYONE should know it. You use what you find
available in whatever circumstances you happen to be caught in when the ship hits the
sand.

Dick you have hit the proverbial nail on it's proverbial head! This
sentence should be required reading, and should be tatooed on everyone's
eyelids.

Predictions of where disaster will strike are not too accurate.
Otherwise we could move people out of the area, and there wouldn't be a
problem. Certain areas are more prone to certain types of disasters, but
overall, where and when it happens is a random thing.

Will these wonderful methods be available to whatever operator happens
to be *in* the area? All the old system did was to ensure the likelyhood
of someone on the inside, and someone on the outside are able to talk to
each other.

It doesn't say they have to use Morse. What it did ensure was that
under some pretty poor conditions, there would be a comms.


Maybe you'll have access to all that "spare gear" and maybe not. If not, well gee,
coulda shouloda woulda, but.......

Now this is an interesting thing! Are we to *have* to buy this
equipment? And what of the poor ham that didn't have the resources and
is caught in the middle of a disaster?


Plans? You STILL don't know about plans and what happens to the "best laid" of them? HA!
It's one thing to be ready to relieve a disaster, quite another to be caught inside one
with a desperate need to communicate to the outside.

They'll use cell phones and Echolink..... you know, modern technology.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:


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.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.