On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:12:29 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

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?

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

On 4 Sep 2003 16:28:59 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:

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.



So now YOU are to decide for the FCC the scope of their organization,.

What an(other) idiot!

Now, I asked you to provide a cite in their charter (the
communications act). You failed to do so. Is there a reason that you
did that?

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:48:06 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

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........

Would it make you feel better if he threw a number out there or would
you guys simply start attacking the number claimed based on some kind
of 10 code logic?

On 4 Sep 2003 16:37:08 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Mike Coslo wrote:

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........


That's exactly right. He'll never tell because the number is embarassingly small.


Without posting a list, he could clam any number that felt good to
him. So, the number would mean nothing withou supporting
documentation. What's sad is that you know that and want to harp on a
number anyway.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 22:40:03 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"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


I understand your point of view Carl. Down heah in Dixie we call that 'eat
up with the dumbass'.

Your NCI organization is nothing but a bunch of whinney crybaby lazy me
generation morons. You know it, and we know it. Now just go off and whine
in your corner.

The truth hurts, eh?

Is the truth that you are referring to the fact that other countries
are dropping the code requirement as fast as they can?

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

"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


I understand your point of view Carl. Down heah in Dixie we call that 'eat
up with the dumbass'.

No doubt. Dumb is written all over your post.

Your NCI organization is nothing but a bunch of whinney crybaby lazy me
generation morons.

Odd. I think the PCTA are the whiney crybaby generation who think if
it was good enough for their grandpappies, that its good enough for
everyone since.

"I had to learn it, whah, whah, whah."

I'm not buying it.

All we've asked you to come up with was a valid reason to retain the
code exam.

That should be simple enough, right?

You know it, and we know it. Now just go off and whine
in your corner.

The truth hurts, eh?

Does it?

On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

Then what do you think that they test for?

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are
nothing more than jumping thru hoops

Come winter after the antenna work is done, I intend to work on designing
some high speed stuff.

Carl - wk

Who are you kidding, you have been claiming this for years.