In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."

No, it's not OK.

Wow, you REALLY "censured" those name-callers! :-)

LHA

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"shephed" wrote in message
.. .

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...
LOL!

A good liberal? you have NO idea..... I'm as right wing
and conservative as they come... evidently you don't read
my other posts or in other NG's either, where i'm referred
to as the "jim birch devil"

Clint
KB5ZHT

You can't be a conservative, we believe in earning your way in life, not
having "things" given to you because you are to lazy to EARN them. Sound
familiar Liberal boy?

Conservative my ass!

Earning your way is fine...as long as the requirement(s)
is relevent...that's were you lose your argument.

"Shepherd" LOST his argument when he started tawkin tuff with a pseudonym
refusing to identify herself.

Must have "caught" something from one of the sheep... :-)

LHA

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...
When I took my drivers test years ago to get a license
to drive an automobile, the never required me to
prove that I could hitch a horse team to a wagon.
The youngsters today, likewise, tell me that the
departments of motor vehicles around the country
do not ask them to prove they are proficient with
buggy whips.

Enough said.

Clint

The youngsters today still tell me that they must learn to use a pencil
and
learn to write script. Typing and word processing are taught AFTER they
have learned to write manually. Enough said.

Bad anology since morse isn't a foundation to any other
body of radio knowledge and/or language skills or
writing skills.

Wrong, because radiotelegraphy IS the most basic radio communications mode,
the use of which is possible only if the operator has self-trained enough to
be able to make use of it.

Tsk, tsk. A push-to-talk voice transmitter and an ordinary receiver is all
the
BASICS to effect communications by radio.

No need for "self-trained" morsemen...or even those trained by the military.

Morsemen are needed at BOTH ends of the radio circuit. Very specialized
and NOT at all "basic."

Bad logic, senior.

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"shephed" wrote in message
...
If your not a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, there is a CW contest
going one right now.

If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a
Ham
Radio thing. You would not understand.

10-73's!

Rev. Jim is going to chastise you for your dirty mouth.

Who are you talking about, Brian?

"Shephed"

...everyone knows what shepherds do with sheep... :-)


Oh, never mind, it's a PCTA thing.

You mean like the way you never censure Len or Carl (or anybody else who
happens to oppose code tests), no matter what they say or how they say it?

Never? Rev. Jim, even little lies will get you turned away from the
gate.

Reverend Jim thinks the radio world revolves around his ideas.

Too bad that all that morse addiction robbed his reasoning faculties.

:-(


Oh, never mind, it's an NCTA double standards thing.

I guess as long as "shephed" is spouting the party line, its OK with
you that he calls people "retarded mouth-breeding NCI members."

Poor gutless "shepherd" unable to give his name, callsign, or any other
ID.

Very little courage on his part. Tsk, tsk.

Or maybe one of his sheep didn't put out? Who knows.

LHA

Jeesh... Don't get Mike going with that one!! HI HI



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...


Let's have a go at "No Handwriting International".

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

And who is making those requirements is a factor as well in the argument.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Earning your way is fine...as long as the requirement(s)
is relevent...that's were you lose your argument.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ...

I tell you what; next time you're operating a motor vehicle, drive
as fast as you can... I mean pedal to the medal; do over 100mph
if you can. when a policeman pulls you over and hands you
a ticket, then tell him "I am driving at a perfectly safe speed for my
skills. Your oppinion and that of the judge that I am about to have
to go in front of are not relavant. It is an immutable fact that
a driver is not a good driver unless he can do 100 without wrecking,
which I did. That's a fact, and you can't do anything about it."

and just see what happens.

Clint
KB5ZHT
a code-tested ham who, regardless of the fact, does not believe
in code testing.

Clint, first, DICK is in Missouri. Second, he used to drill 7/8"
holes in the rooftops of police cars. He probably can drive 100+
miles an hour, yet never even have to see a judge. That's just the
way things are in Missouri.

And don't try to tell him anything about the FCC. He used to know a
guy that used to work at the FCC, so he knows all about it. Past,
present, and future.

Not to worry. The actuarial tables will solve all. They may be
painfully slow, but huge corporations have lots of faith and money
riding on the fact that they are immutable.

Babble, babble, babble & rave on! Brainiac, the Village Idiot at his finest!

BTW how would YOU know what size hole goes in the roof of cars?
You beern there and done that, hey??? And since you DON'T know, not a single one of our cars used
the rooftop for antennas.

You woulda if you coulda figured out how to deal with the headliner.
You shoulda found someone with a little finesse.

Beyond that, all the installations were done at a central radio shop, not
by field engineers.

Probably was a pain in the buttocks and got shipped to the field.
Happens all the time.

You sure are a fart smeller!

Hey... you really want to watch that rush hour trafic, now. Those tables you're so sure of might
catch up with you a bit early, you know.....Happens every day. *I* made it through those days
intact......

DICK, don't know exactly what happened, but you are NOT intact.

--
--
Top nations that fund UN treasury,
in descending order...

United States: 22%
Japan: 19.6%
Germany: 9.8%
France: 6.5%
UK: 5.6%
Italy 5.1%
Canada: 2.6%
Spain: 2.5%

Russia isn't even in this top 8 list.
France, Russia and Germany, COMBINED,
do not contribute as much to the UN as
does the United States......

--


"Bert Craig" wrote in message news:_Wu9b.222

Nice concept on paper, but in the real world... Quite frankly, what
example
has NCI given to the prospective ham? It sure doesn't exemplify the values
of a "self-starter."

so where is it written, and what proof is there, that ONLY cw training
is exemplifies one as being "a self starter"? Would you say that means
all the other fields of studies and all the other areas of discipline are
full of "non starters" because CW isn't part of the agenda?

just the idea of getting into ham radio, studying to pass the exames
and learning to put together a station is, in and of itself, an example
of a self-starter, since on only the will and love of the hobby drove
the person to do it. They didn't HAVE to for any reason.



Couldn't care how slow...as long as said CW/Data sub-bands remain intact.


hm, now how ODD... a certain OTHER PCTA type in this very thread
told me that here "is not a CW portion of any band, there never has
been"....
are you saying there are, and there HAS been? *GASP*

And don't try to tell him anything about the FCC. He used to know a
guy that used to work at the FCC, so he knows all about it. Past,
present, and future.


LOL!

Yea, well... i'll tell you what... I know what i'm talking about, because
I myself was told by this dude I use to know a while back, that did
some stuff.... and afterwards, I heard it all from him... and now I know
stuff.

really, I do. I know stuff.

Clint
KB5ZHT

I have clipped the intermediate sections of the reply, but
kept the useful ones that Dick Carroll posted for my
following analysis....




"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

snip
Babble, babble, babble & rave on! Brainiac, the Village Idiot at his
finest!

snip
BTW how would YOU know what size hole goes in the roof of cars?
You beern there and done that, hey???

snip
You sure are a fart smeller!


Dick Caroll has resorted to insults and name-calling. He's obviously run
out of debate tactics and ideas, and never in the first place had any
facts to support his position. He's lost the argument.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...


The FCC does NOT use the term "ham" in Part 97. That's the LAW.

interesting topic spin-off, but I once researched where the term "ham" came
from... the only thing I could find was that it was simply a *******ization
of
the term "amateur"

clint
kb5zht

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , Dick Carroll
writes:


What's to "promote," senior?

I like how you picked up on his condescending use of the age reference...

I remember on the local VHF frequencies once I got in an argument on the
air about (guess what???) cw testing... and the fellow I was arguing with
(oviously several years my elder) tried to belittle and detract from the
factual approach of my argument by referring to me as "young man"....
you know, "let me tell you what, YOUNG MAN, ...... etc etc..."

so I had the PERFECT come back. I told him "okay, we'll end the
debate right here; you are judging the accuracy of the debate and,
thus, who wins, solely on who's older, not who's more correct. I'll
go find my friend [not included here for discreetness], who just
celebrated his 82'nd birthday; i'll let him talk on my behalf and just
feed him the lines to say, and since he's OLDER than YOU, that
means i'm automatically right, even if he, vicariously through me,
claims the moon is made out of green cheese, right?"

as I recall, not too much was said after that.

it's so easy.

Clint
KB5ZHT

And Clint says Dee was spurious?

- Mike KB3EIA -


um, yea...... you see, the tactic I emplyed is called
reductio ad absurdum.... that is, demonstrating
absurdity by being absurd.

sorry you didn't "get it"

Clint
KB5ZHT

Come on Bill! NO knowledge of much of anything is needed as a
foundation. Thousands of CB ops say otherwise!

- Mike KB3EIA -


and on the citizen's band they'll stay; they will not be legally
able to get on the ham bands until they pass whatever test the FCC
dictates that they have to. If it just so happens that it no longer
includes CW, then they will simply be ham radio operators that
didn't have to take a cw test.

Clint
KB5ZHT

you're mad because YOU had to do it, bottom line.

Yep, in a nutshell. When the gubmn't said, "Jump!" DICK replied, "How
High?"

Now he feels foolish.

more or less a "bovine" mentality isn't it? the whole herd, mooing and
everything,
was herded into the trailers to be taken to the slaughterfactory.... and to
it they
went.

now that the times have changed and don't require it, they're mad because
we're smart enough to realize we don't have to respond to the cattleprods
and go up that ramp into the trailers... and off to the factory, just like
THEY did....

Clint
KB5ZHT

You and Clint are the pair in a nutshell with no clue as to how to get
out.


non-relavent statement that pertains to nothing, means nothing, and proves
nothing. basically a blanketing statement meant to provoke and insult.
nothing more.

You ARE foolish. Your past history proves it.

more of the same, with the self-fullfilling statement preceding it.

Clint
KB5ZHT

spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Heh heh heh...too bad that "spark" is outlawed.

PCTA types would demand that ALL hams know "spark" theory and
operating skills if it was still legal... :-)

LHA

Oh, MAN! GOOD POINT!!!!
that's what I like about forums, enough people share ideas and group X
thinks of things that group Y didn't, and vica versa... just where IS
the PCTA's emphasis on "basics" and such, when the very basic
beginning is not only NOT pushed upon them, but outlawed?

Oh, it's TOO sweet!!!!!!

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

Keep 1896 alive and well in the hearts of all amateurs.


yea, so much for "advancing the radio art" and so forth... that would
basically turn it into "freeze the radio art in time, and dam any possible
advancement or progress"

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

spurious analogies are in the PCTA handbook, bill.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Heh heh heh...too bad that "spark" is outlawed.

PCTA types would demand that ALL hams know "spark" theory and
operating skills if it was still legal... :-)

LHA

Oh, MAN! GOOD POINT!!!!
that's what I like about forums, enough people share ideas and group X
thinks of things that group Y didn't, and vica versa... just where IS
the PCTA's emphasis on "basics" and such, when the very basic
beginning is not only NOT pushed upon them, but outlawed?

Oh, it's TOO sweet!!!!!!

Well, that's how it goes. Every amateur must know morse in order to save
the next Titanic or something. Morse is used "countless times" in national
emergencies. It is the next most basic radio communications thing, etc.
["countless" is apt because the number of actual emergency comms done
by on-off-keying modes is zero, zilch, nada...unless the self-promoters
think that Health and Welfare messages are "emergencies."]

"Spark" or damped-wave RFI generators could only be used in any kind of
communications by an on-off keying mode. Wasn't possible to AM it or
FM it, or PM it or much of anything else except on-off kind of thing.

Somewhere about now, Rev. Jim is going to come up with the famous 1906
first-known AM application...and conveniently fail to note that such was
done on a rather large alternator generator (definitely not a "spark" xmtr)
and using a water-cooled microphone. Not really practical except it proved
AM was possible and receivable on a crystal receiving set or coherer.

Beep, beep

LHA.

In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

The FCC does NOT use the term "ham" in Part 97. That's the LAW.

interesting topic spin-off, but I once researched where the term "ham" came
from... the only thing I could find was that it was simply a *******ization
of the term "amateur"

Heh heh. We will now expect that ARRL supporters to jump and reference
the "official" source of "ham." For once the ARRL is close to the truth.
:-)

Etymologically speaking, American English was already using "ham" as a
poor substitute for beef at the turn of the century before last. In show
biz
the term "ham actor" referred to a showy, not-very-good entertainer who
was more interested in presenting themselves than the stageplay.

The progression from "amateur" to "ham" was a natural for American
English speakers (a "*******ization of the word amateur" as you say).
According to the ARRL "official" source of all things amateur in the USA,
the word "ham" was used by professional radiotelegraphers as a not-nice
term for the non-professional radio amateurs way back in the beginning of
radio time.

"Real hams" do NOT like the word "amateur" at all applying to them. Some
want to be considered of "professional caliber" and constantly shoot off at
professionals in radio. They are shooting blanks of course, and their
caliber is about BB size.

So, we've got a bunch of these "professional amateurs" who want to be
"better" than real professionals because they think they are so damn
good. No doubt they are very skilled at morsemanship and have been
tossing out money for decades in building their "station," but very few are
REAL professionals in the sense that they accept money for amateur
services rendered (illegal, of course, a sort of "financial bootlegging").

ARRL is "professional amateurism" in an organized sense and with an IRS-
reported taxable income of $12 million or so a few years ago.

REAL hams are "superior" or something. They keep saying that outright if
not implying it constantly. I'm not sure what their "superiority" really is
other than marketing certain kinds of plant growth nutrient surrogates. :-)

Amateur radio remains a HOBBY, a recreational activity that requires
government regulation due to the physics of radio waves. Apparently new
folks aren't supposed to enjoy it or have fun in it unless they bow and
scrape to their "superiors" in ham radio. Rank, title, status, privilege
are
all "necessary" in the hobby of these "superiors." :-)

When questioned on their actual enjoyment of the hobby (to them it is a
"service" of a higher calling), they answer that they enjoy it "more" just
because they are "superior." :-)

LHA

"Clint" wrote ...

and a LOT more FM, ssb, AM, packet, etc too.
________________________________________________

Not really -- Morse Code is the second most popular mode in Amateur Radio
after SSB. But, you knew that already, right? (Oh, apparently not!)

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

They just don't get it (the PCTAs that is). Ending morse testing should
happen because there is NO logical/rational reason for government to
continue mandating morse knowledge of all HF licensed hams. Getting the
government out of a "morse code affirmative action program" by ending
mandated morse is far more a conservative concept than a liberal one.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Isn't it about time to put some music to that song, Bill? I suppose if
you
repeat it enough times, maybe even *you* will actually believe it.

Too bad the only entity that makes the difference
(i.e. the FCC) believes my position.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Well, that's how it goes. Every amateur must know morse in order to save
the next Titanic or something. Morse is used "countless times" in national
emergencies. It is the next most basic radio communications thing, etc.
["countless" is apt because the number of actual emergency comms done by
on-off-keying modes is zero, zilch, nada...unless the self-promoters think
that Health and Welfare messages are "emergencies."]
__________________________________________________ _______________

My EM Agency has multiple sets of HF gear and every one of them is manned by
an ARS operator that is CW capable -- and we'd be foolish not to include
that capability in our EM package. Now, don't get me wrong, I just love the
new technology. As a part of that, we have FM trunked radios, laptop
computers, closed network capability, VTC Scotties, and SATLinks. IOW, we
use *all* of the tools available to us. Why not just admit that CW does
have a place in the EM package -- or are you just so dug into your position
that you can't see the sky anymore? IMO, it's not necessary to throw out
the older viable technology in order to embrace the future. If that were
the case, none of us would ever use a hard-wired phone again.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

The fact that morse is in use o ham bands offers no reason to have a code
test in order to begin learning and using the mode. If a new ham without
code knowledge decided to get together with another ham to mutually
learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose
that?
__________________________________________________ ___________

As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a guy code now that runs about 4 wpm --
and he is *yet* to take test one. I don't need to tell you that this is
considerably slower than I usually send/receive. But, the fact is that we
*all* started at 0 wpm and worked up from there. My prediction is that my
friend will be up to a reasonable speed in no time flat. It's all in the
attitude of the learner and elmer, Bill. I have no doubt that CW will go on
much longer than any testing requirements. That's why I continue to promote
and teach it.

Arnie -

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

The fact that morse is in use o ham bands offers no reason to have a code
test in order to begin learning and using the mode. If a new ham without
code knowledge decided to get together with another ham to mutually
learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose
that?
__________________________________________________ ___________

As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a guy code now that runs about 4 wpm --
and he is *yet* to take test one. I don't need to tell you that this is
considerably slower than I usually send/receive. But, the fact is that we
*all* started at 0 wpm and worked up from there. My prediction is that my
friend will be up to a reasonable speed in no time flat. It's all in the
attitude of the learner and elmer, Bill. I have no doubt that CW will go on
much longer than any testing requirements. That's why I continue to promote
and teach it.

Arnie -

Better put a zerk fitting on those keys for what's coming your way.

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Clint wrote:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

Keep 1896 alive and well in the hearts of all amateurs.

yea, so much for "advancing the radio art" and so forth... that would
basically turn it into "freeze the radio art in time, and dam any possible
advancement or progress"

(YAWN!!!) You clowns are more stale than last week's coffee.

in a 40's flophouse, no doubt.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If a new ham without code knowledge decided to get together
with another ham to mutually learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow
seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose that?

That's in place right now, Bill...6m, 2m, 220, 440...

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

They just don't get it (the PCTAs that is). Ending morse testing
should
happen because there is NO logical/rational reason for government to
continue mandating morse knowledge of all HF licensed hams. Getting
the
government out of a "morse code affirmative action program" by ending
mandated morse is far more a conservative concept than a liberal one.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Isn't it about time to put some music to that song, Bill? I suppose
if
you
repeat it enough times, maybe even *you* will actually believe it.

Too bad the only entity that makes the difference
(i.e. the FCC) believes my position.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Really??? That was last time. You have no idea what they 'll do this time.

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...
especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

Has anyone come up with that WOW argument that will justify
the need for morse testing? So far, nothing new has been
offered by PCTAs at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote ...

Well Bill, I'm on the bottom of 40 right now listening to a band FULL
of
irrelevance. hihi
__________________________________________________ _________

Here, Here. Yep, CW is just dead as a doornail, Right Bert?

The fact that morse is in use o ham bands offers no reason
to have a code test in order to begin learning and using the mode.
If a new ham without code knowledge decided to get together
with another ham to mutually learn/use code at veerrrryyy slow
seed (say 1-2 wpm)...would you oppose that?

I'd oppose it happening on the air on HF. That's incorrect and improper
use of
spectrum.

It is? Why, if there's a vacant slot of spectrum to do so? Seems like
there's plenty of spectrum in the "novice" segments now.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...
especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

Well, I wouldn't condider it a lock. The FCC was recently spanked by
both the Supremes and the Senate. They may be reluctant to send anything
new along for a while.


In addition, the US has shown a reluctance to go along with what the
rest of the world is thinking.

Finally, we haven't ratified all that many treaties lately have we?

So while it might happen, I'm not going to do any betting on it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

I agree completely...I applaud your efforts, and would like to know.... Do
you work with your friend on the air? If not, why not?
__________________________________________________ __________________

No, he's not licensed yet and we live too far away from each other for him
to just drop by and use my use my gear as a third party operator. Otherwise
I would. We just spend lunchtime working on the computer with Morse
Academy. But, IMHO, on the air is always the best way to learn.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...


I guess it's too bad that there aren't that many coal fired steam
locomotives
being used anymore.

On the othe hand, there IS very MUCH Morse code being used on ham radio!

and a LOT more FM, ssb, AM, packet, etc too.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Packet has almost disappeared. There is far less packet than voice or
Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Has anyone come up with that WOW argument that will justify
the need for morse testing? So far, nothing new has been
offered by PCTAs at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK




well, no..... all the arguments being given to keep the code testing
are easily broken down into thier base, most center-core reason...

"I HAD TO DO IT, SO THEY SHOULD HAVE TO!!!!!"

And that just falls flat on its face.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Ah, but it HAS. I can recall the time when you had to sign ertifying that
you
had'made at least 2 CW contacts within the past six months to be eligible
to
renew your license.


and what decade was that?

Clint
KB5ZHT

You yourself have just stated FSK thus proving that they are not CW only.
Please note that there are portions of the 6m and 2m bands that are indeed
CW only as not even FSK is allowed there. So the statement that there are
no portions of MF/HF limited to cw only is indeed a true statement.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


um, yes. KEEN grasp of the obvious there!

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
You must have been upset too when states eliminated mandatory
testing on manual gearbox autos and allowed testing to be done
using any car.

Not me, just the folks filing their insurance claims and/or licking their
wounds after someone who didn't know how to negotiate the clutch AND the
brake pedal simultaneously rear-ended them at a red light.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

P.S. My first drivers license was "manual shift endorsed." ggg

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...

Maybe - maybe not. Right now there are several petitions under consideration,
and almost certainly more on the way. Lots of comments, etc., to be considered.
Everyone can have their say and then FCC will do whatever FCC wants, based on
whatever FCC thinks is the best thing to do.

And no matter what FCC does, some folks will think it's the wrong thing. But at
least we can have our say.

especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

"entire international community"? I think not! Just those few who get to decide
policy.

For example, a poll of German hams found them overwhelmingly in favor of
keeping code tests. Didn't matter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...
especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

Well, I wouldn't condider it a lock. The FCC was recently
spanked by
both the Supremes and the Senate. They may be reluctant to send anything
new along for a while.

In addition, the US has shown a reluctance to go along with what the
rest of the world is thinking.


actually, only the executive (presidential) branch has shown real resistance
to world pressures. MANY other levels of government, including special
interest groups, work to have the country damn near lay down and let
the world use us as a doormat.... such as Earth First! pushing to have
tighter environmental restrictions placed on american industry, as per
the request of the united nations which WE fund about a FOURTH of
it's treasury.


Finally, we haven't ratified all that many treaties lately have we?

this wouldn't exactly be a "treaty"... all the nations that are chosing to
drop CW testing haven't done so in a huge gathering with a document
with signatures on it, all in agreement.... they are doing it individually
on a case-by-case basis.


So while it might happen, I'm not going to do any betting on it.


that's what a lot of people said to the proposition that higher speed CW
testing being dropped... but it did. It's gone, and will not ever return, to
the
chagrin of many.

Then when the retired head of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of the
FCC
states in his comments to the NCVAEC petition, the writing of which he was
a
party, that it simply is an oxymoron that an Extra Class ham should
be allowed to *not* be proficient in Morse when he is considered an expert
at
ham radio, you might take that as some sort of a clue to thinking in high
places...


the definition of oxymoron is a statement or word that contridicts itself.
it is only
an OPINION but not a FACT that an extra class ham includes within itself the
requirement to be proficient in morse code.

the law is what counts, and currently the only proficiency required is 5wpm
(for any
class for that matter)... and soon, that will be dropped. Then, by law, just
not
to YOUR liking, will be that an extra class ham will not have to show
profeciency
in archaic, outdated communication modes.

Clint
KB5ZHT