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?

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

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.

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
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.

That's funny. I don't necessarily agree with it, but its funny.

Tell me, do you have any anecdotal stories?

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

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.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

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.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

Kim W5TIT

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

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.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

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 -

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.