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.

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.

What do they do for an encore?

- Mike KB3EIA -

What do they do for an encore?

Put out a list of 10 Codes

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.

"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.

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 - wk3c

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.

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
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.

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.

Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


some snippage


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


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


Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

1. Everyone here thinks they are being rational, unless they are being
purposefully non-rational. (say Bruce for example, who is having fun
baiting people - and even in his case, take note that when he is
starting to be serious his spelling and grammar become correct)

2. You really aren't that far from the truth.

3. Insane people are exempt from all this. But there really aren't that
many insane people.

My rationale is that what is or isn't rational is based on the starting
assumption or world view.

If your basic assumption is that things should be simplified or to be
made easier, then you would agree with a proposal such as the NCI
proposal before the FCC. It is rational and compelling from that viewpoint.

If you believe that simplification is not necessary or desirable, you
are more likely to find the FISTS proposal rational and compelling.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


some snippage


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


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


Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

1. Everyone here thinks they are being rational, unless they are being
purposefully non-rational. (say Bruce for example, who is having fun
baiting people - and even in his case, take note that when he is
starting to be serious his spelling and grammar become correct)

Bruce is an stupendous and amazing man.

2. You really aren't that far from the truth.

Oh, geez.

3. Insane people are exempt from all this. But there really aren't that
many insane people.

Not even Hinkley?

My rationale is that what is or isn't rational is based on the starting
assumption or world view.

Always is.

If your basic assumption is that things should be simplified or to be
made easier, then you would agree with a proposal such as the NCI
proposal before the FCC. It is rational and compelling from that viewpoint.

My basic assumption is there are some things the government should be
doing and there are some things that the government shouldn't be
doing.

We could start with the Constitution of the United States and its
Articles, and try to find the rationale for a welfare state.

Brian

"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

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