**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 21 Sep 2003 06:28:53 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

If you have to MAKE it happen, then it isn't making it on it's own
merit.

Fine. Then let's get rid of any and all testing in schools at every
educational level. After all, all those tests only "force" students to
demonstrate academic achievement, don't they? That's "making"
an education happen, so we can't have that, can we?

We can, and we do, primarily because one is doomed to fail in life
without an education. You'll also note that one does not have to study
medicine and get an M.D. in order to graduate with a degree in, say,
business administration - primarily because a guy with an MBA isn't
expected to perform brain surgery. With respect to Amateur Radio,
nobody is forced to operate in CW once they're licensed, and one can
succeed in the ARS by using any one of a few dozen other modes we're
allowed to use, so forcing them to take a code test makes no sense.

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 21 Sep 2003 08:25:52 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Now, then, how does the advocation of code testing in any way correlate
to bigotry, elitism, and/or discrimination against other Americans?

By steadfastly refusing to admit that code testing is a
government-subsidized life support system for an anachronism, and
insisting that code testing be retained, PCTAs are supporting
artificial barriers to entry into the hobby. I suspect that for many
PCTAs, and maybe even for most PCTAs, the motive for this lies not in
promoting the use of the mode, but in retaining a piece of the RF
spectrum for their own use at the exclusion of others who their no
longer exists a practical reason for keeping them out on the basis of
code proficiency.

Whether you or any of the other PCTAs care to realize it or not,
Larry, this attitude is THE reason why so many people in other facets
of hobby radio, while respecting the abilities of hams with respect to
our knowledge about radio, tend to consider us a bunch of stuffed
shirts personally. Outside the ARS, the code test is perceived (quite
correctly) as archaic and pointless except as a hazing ritual that
exists solely as a means of keeping others from joining our exclusive
little club - which is elitism by definition - and then when you get
people like WA8ULX using derogatory terms like "CBplussers" to
describe fellow hams who don't share the same interests in radio as he
does, that, Larry, is bigotry...and ULX is far from being the only ham
in here who is guilty of it.

The
code tests, both past and present, have proved to be achievable by people
from all walks of life, including those with communicative disabilities up to
and including total deafness. Try as I may, I can't find anything patently
"discriminatory" there. So, take a shot of setting me straight -- how is
code testing "discrimination?"

I've already shown bigotry and elitism. I'm not going to bother
getting into discriminatory - two out of three is bad enough. I'll
give you a hint, though...a Technician who passes the written test is
not qualified to operate on HF phone, but a Tech who passes a code
test *is* qualified to operate on HF phone? That makes about as much
sense as some of the junk coming into this NG from the crossposters
over in the rec.radio.cb newsgroup. Whether or not the Tech is
qualified to operate on HF phone - or PSK31 or SSTV or any other mode
besides CW - has nothing to do with whether he or she can copy Morse.
You really mean to tell me that you guys who bill yourselves as
superior to most other hams don't understand how stupid that looks to
those outside your steadily shrinking clique of PCTAs? And you can't
see the harm it does to the image of amateur radio? C'mon, guys, get
your heads out of the sand, will ya? It's 2003, not 1936.

I've discussed that contradiction with Larry before. He does seem to
exclude code testing from his conservative views opposing excessive
government regulation.

Correct, because I don't consider it to be "excessive" government
regulation.

If it is unnecessary, it is excessive.

I believe the government has a valid need to regulate certain
things, especially valuable and finite resources such as the RF
spectrum.

Last time I checked, FCC still does regulate the RF spectrum.

Therefore, I believe that when license is to be given for the
PRIVILEGE of free use of RF spectrum, which is worth potentially
billions of dollars should it be converted to commerce in the commercial
utility communications and broadcasting industries, certain government
regulation makes good sense.

Which we have - in the case of the ARS, it's in Part 97. Other radio
services are regulated by other parts of FCC regulations. Dropping
code testing will not render the ARS unregulated - it will merely
remove an archaic regulation that not only no longer serves any
purpose vital to the well-being of the ARS, but actually is no longer
in keeping with the basis and purpose of the ARS - a fact which FCC
conceded in its R&O on the last round of restructuring. One would
think that if an agency of the federal beaurocracy can be made to
aquiesce to this fact, a few thousand regular citizens ought to be
able to understand it to, yet the PCTAs continue to cling to an
obvious (to everyone else) anachronism as if it were the only
worthwhile pursuit in all of amateur radio. That puts PCTAs in a
distinct minority, because the rest of the world understands that it
is anything but a worthwhile pursuit as far as it relates to the state
of communications technology in the 22nd century world.

If Morse Code has real value, it should be able to
survive in as close to a free market environment as possible.

Well, that's a wonderful concept, Dwight, but history has shown that
it doesn't work when put to the actual test.

That alone should tell you something...like maybe that the rest of the
world isn't operating under the same illusions as most PCTAs seem to
be suffering from.

The No-code Technician
experiment only served to bring us a couple hundred grand of new
hams who self-limited their amateur radio experience to the 2-meter
repeaters.

I disagree - the 2-meter band is merely the most popular among those
bands on which their licenses grant them operating privileges. That,
along with the widespread availability of equipment for operating
there, makes it a matter of course that most of them are going to show
up there first.

Naturally, they all want the freedom to use HF phone, but
that still (for now) requires that they learn the Morse code and pass
a test, albeit at a mere 5 WPM. The fact that they are not doing so in
any great numbers indicates that the Morse code does not have any
particular drawing power based on it's own "merits," as the NCTA
would infer.

Again, that ought to tell you something. It does tell me something. It
tells me that either radio hobbyists in general are smarter than PCTAs
seem to think they are, or that perhaps the PCTAs aren't as smart as
they think they are.

To put it another way, just because a minority of hams who happen to
be PCTAs have deluded themselves into thinking that an archaic testing
requirement of an anachronistic operating mode is of continued benefit
to the ARS or to the science of radio, does not necessarily mean that
the rest of us are going to fall victim to the same fallacy. The fact
that so many people aren't buying into this supposition indicates to
me that perhaps NCTAs - and hams who are interested in ham radio but
not in CW operation - aren't dumbing down the hobby, as the PVTAs
would infer. Perhaps the dumbing down is coming from the other side of
the CW fence.

And now that there is a very bold dotted line drawn
around even this meager requirement, the incentive has all but
fully evaporated.

That incentive evaporated sometime around 1970. That's when the state
of communications technology truly made CW obsolete for most purposes.
It remains a viable communications mode, but it is far from being the
most efficient, it is far from being the easiest to learn and use, and
it is long past time to do away with the code testing requirement.
It's doing nothing but keeping people out of the ARS for no good
reason other than that the PCTAs get to hold onto their "turf" on the
bands for a little while longer. Anyone who thinks differently,
mention the refarming of the Novice bands to any PCTA. Then get ready
to start peeling PCTAs off the ceiling.

I think it has
that value and can survive just fine without a regulation mandating testing.

And I don't -- and have seen conclusive proof that it won't.

Which leaves two reasons for continuing to have a code test, and both
of them are rooted in elitism and bigotry.

Funny...part of the Basis & Purpose mentions fostering international
goodwill - yet we have so many people in the ARS who can't even be
bothered to foster goodwill on our side of the ponds. They'd prefer to
cling like koala bears to their own little slices of the RF spectrum
and the rest of us be damned. Sickening.

First of all, FCC Commissioners are political appointees, not necessarily
technical experts. They can, and do, depend on the advice of professional
technical experts, who actually formulate and subsequently make
recommendations on regulatory matters. The Commissioners mainly
ensure that these regulations meet the needs of their respective
political constituencies, often with numerous conflicting interests battering
them from every angle.

None of which has anything to do with the usefulness of code testing,
so (as they say down at the barber shop), "Next!"

Second, it is not my desire to "undermine" anyone. I don't view the
Morse code testing requirements, past or present, to be in any way
unachievable or otherwise discriminatory.

Ostrich...head...sand.

In fact, I view them as being
directly in support of the concept of learning and maintaining the use of
a highly useful communications skill, therefore, the requirement has,
IMHO, intrinsic merit.

"Highly" useful? At this stage of the game, probably half the licensed
hams in the world have no interest in using CW to communicate and
wouldn't know how to if they did.

This does not "benefit me more" than anyone
else in the ARS.

Sure it does. You've got yours, so nuts to everybody else. You'll
fight to retain that archaic, anachronistic testing requirement even
if it means there will eventually be thirty licensed hams left in the
country, all crowded onto a 2 kilohertz slice of spectrum somewhere
down around 150 kc and the only mode permitted is CW.

Moreover, I am definitely not squelching anyone with
different views. This newsgroup is adequate evidence of that.

I think it's more like, this NG is evidence of the fact that you
*can't* squelch anyone with a differing viewpoint, even if you wish
you could. You can't do it here, and you can't do it during FCC
comment periods. That's the only reason we aren't still wasting
people's time with 13wpm and 20wpm code tests. Eventually, the 5wpm
test willhead down the same road. It will be interesting to see how
many PCTAs will stick around ande continue to be VEs and elmers and
active hams and work for the good of the ARS, and how many will take
their ball and go home.

You seem dumb and dumberer to the fact that every other radio
service (except a small part of maritime radio) in the USA has either
DROPPED morse code (snip)

Actually, as you may know, even the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) voted in 1998 to eliminate Morse Code. The Coast Guard itself dropped
code in 1995. As a result of these two events, the Coast Guard now urges
commercial vessels not to use code since CG personnel, and an increasing
number of radio operators in the maritime service, may no longer have the
skills necessary to communicate using that system. The UN-chartered IMO is
responsible for defining and regulating international maritime
telecommunications. It's positions are adopted by the ITU.

All of this is really swell, Dwight, and trust me, if my dinghy were to spring
a leak in the middle of a busy shipping lane, the last thing I would do is
break out my J-38 and ask the next passing Liberian tanker to swing by
my position and fish me out of the drink. However, I would have my
marine HF and VHF radios powered up, and I'd have the mic in hand,
screaming like bloody havoc! However, this discussion is about the
AMATEUR Radio Service. Can you PUHLEEEZE, just for once, get that
concept thru your Kevlar skull? Your lack of situational awareness, while
accusing me of the same, is getting to be quite frustrating.

Larry, he *was* discussing the ARS. He pointed out - quite correctly I
might add - that the ARS is the only place in the RF spectrum where an
archaic operating mode is widely believed by a significant number of
the operators therein to reign supreme despite overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. Ham radio organizations widely lament the lack of
growth in the hobby, ham radio clubs have a fraction of their former
membership counts, ham radio magazines print articles and reader
letters lamenting the lack of activity even on the 2m repeaters, and
yet we have people who continue to support a testing requirement that
is probably more responsible for that than any other single factor.

The rest of the world is in the 22nd century. The ARS is still mired
in the 19th century. You once asked something to the effect of, where
are all the hams who were going to give us high-speed data networks
over radio once the no-code licenses came out?

The answer is, we didn't get the no-code licenses unti it was 15 years
too late, by which time those potential hams were already working for
companies like Microsoft and couldn't have cared less any more about
ham radio. That's the way it is - and if the PCTAs have their way,
that's the way it'll stay. Unfortunately, something tells me that's
just fine with the PCTAs, who all too often seem to me as if they have
their own selfish interests in mind rather than the best interests of
the ARS.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:30:01 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


The Amateur Radio Service is not
(or should not be) defined solely by CW/code, so that one mode does not
solely define what is in the best interest of the ARS. However, as it is,
testing of that one mode does continue to define the ARS. I personally think
it is time for that to change.

It's been time for that to change for the last 30 years.

Better late than never, I guess. sigh

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 23 Sep 2003 05:34:27 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Dwight:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply is unresponsive. If the
above were true, then the very second radio amateurs started using modes
other than CW, the code testing requirement should have been dropped,
for all the same reasons given by the NCTA today. However, it wasn't.
In fact, in the late '60's, over a half-century after the need for military and
commercial stations to be able to shoo-off "those damn hams" from
their frequencies, the Morse code testing requirement was increased
as part of the now lamented "Incentive Licensing" scheme.

Obviously a mistake, then...so what is your rationale for compounding
that mistake by continuing to perpetuate it any longer?

Incentive
Licensing was an ARRL initiative, and it was done to ensure that the
Morse/CW mode would continue to be used in spite of the increasing
popularity of SSB and digital modes.

Another obvious mistake...let's deliberately restrict progress in the
ARS by clinging to archaic technology like koala bears. Real astute
leadership from the League there...NOT!

It was actually a very brilliant plan,

Actually it was a very stupid plan, as shown by the test of time.

but was spoiled by the resentment caused by the lack of full
"grandfathering" of the existing Generals to the new Amateur Extra
class. If only that had been done, we may not be having this debate
today.


To say nothing of the resentment caused by deciding in the face of
rapidly advancing communications technology to remain rooted in an
anachronism left over from before the dawn of the 20th century. If
only that had not been done, the brightest young technological minds
of two full generations might have been drawn to amateur radio instead
of computers and the landline BBSes and finally the Internet, and
there would be no need for this silly debate because the ARS would
have stayed on the cutting ege of communications technology instead of
having made the decision to allow itself to be left in the dust.

During the last ARRL 10-Meter Contest, I worked over 160 QSO's on
10-meters, using only CW. This is on 10-meters, a band famous as a
repository for the 5 WPM Novice/Techs exercising the whole of their HF
phone privileges! During contests covering all HF bands, such as the
November Sweepstakes (CW), it is not possible to work all of the CW
stations participating.

It is not possible to work all of the phone stations participating in
the phone portion of Sweepstakes, either. The question is, did you
work a Clean Sweep?

Well, at least not for me, with my minimal station
in a highly antenna-compromised apartment QTH. However, in spite
of my operating challenges, the CW mode provides endless potential
to make points. During the November SS (Phone) last year, my
club station (W3DOV) was also operating under "marginal" conditions
at the QTH of Mark, KE3UY. Using literally the same power and
antennas as I would at my home QTH, we worked a lot fewer stations
than we could have on CW.

That's what you get for wasting all that time pounding brass instead
of learning some phone operating skills. :-)

It's as simple as that. And, excluding
contests, the CW segments are very alive and full of stations all the
time, largely thanks to FISTS and the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper.

Excluding contests, the phone segments are also very alive and full of
stations - no thanks to FISTS or to the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper....and no thanks to the code test, for that matter.


The efforts being made to eliminate the Morse code test requirement
are motivated by one thing and one thing only:

Common sense.

laziness.

Unfortunately, common sense is not necessarily very common.

The laziness
born of a lack of desire to learn and gain reasonable proficiency in a
proven, useful communications skill.

Being a good phone contest operator requires developing some skills
too, Larry. You guys might have done better in Sweepstakes Phone if
you hadn't been to lazy to gain reasonable proficiency in this proven,
useful communications skill - which is even more widely used than CW,
and therefore makes even more sense to take the time to learn.

But, like I said, common sense is... sigh

And, considering the nature of
the ARS, indulging that laziness would be an abomination.

The dicstionary on the shelf here doesn't list "abomination" but it
does define "abominable" as follows:

1. hateful; disgusting: Leprosy is an abominable disease.
2. very unpleasant: abominable manners.

Pretty much sounds like the way that many of us feel about code
testing, and it's probably how some people feel about the code itself,
but the fact remains that this pointless adherence to an anachronism
is an aberration that exists only in the ARS, and nowhere else. Small
wonder that we're the subject of ridicule elsewhere in the radio hobby
community because of it.

Therefore, code testing is not
essential to the Amateur Radio Service.

It most certainly is, if the ARS wishes to continue to develop radio
operators capable of exploiting the many benefits and advantages
of the Morse/CW mode.

And while we're developing radio operators who have proficiency with
an operating mode that nobody but hams uses, we're failing to devlop
operators proficient in the skills that might actually be useful out
there in the real world. Yet, old-timers lament the fact that these
days, having a ham license won't get you a job bagging groceries, let
alone any meaningful work in a communications-related field. Small
wonder, when the ARS itself decided to stay rooted in 19th century
technology, eh?

The FCC has stated repeatedly that whether or not it will have an
interesting in the "continued use of this mode" depends upon a
consensus of the amateur radio community itself.

Half of which, as no-code Techs, has already voted, by deciding not to
join the PCTAs in deluding themselves about the usefulness of an
anachronistic, 19th-century operating mode.

Therefore,
unfortunately, we will be at the mercy of the majority. Us PCTA's
may not like the outcome, but that is the risk one takes when living
in a democracy.

Given time, the results may prove better in the long run for the ARS.
Will you still think it unfortunate if this happens?

As far as the FCC is concerned, it is now
just one more operating mode among the many used within the Amateur Radio
Service. There is no sufficient argument to support the continued existence
of a code testing requirement. As such, the code testing requirement should
be eliminated.

As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic could then be applied to
testing for knowledge of any of the requirements for technical knowledge,
since radio amateurs no longer have the ability to design, build, and repair
state-of-the art communications gear unless they possess professional-
grade technical knowledge, skills, and facilities.

Interesting, isn't it, to note that this separation between
professional-grade technical knowledge and that available in the ARS
started shortly after the ARS decided to remain in the Dark Ages while
the rest of the world took off on the Technology Boom. We stayed in
the Morse age while the rest of the world entered the Information Age.
Yeah, incentive licensing was a great idea. Personally, I'd rank it
right up there with sending troops to Vietnam.

And, since this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Of course it is! Now, an example of a *reasonable* expectation would
be to expect proficiency in a method of communications that is about
150 years old and that nobody else uses anymore. That *really*
encourages people to become part of the ARS and be a part of the
supposed advancement of the radio art that the Basis & Purpose portion
of Part 97 says we're supposed to be all about, doesn't it?

Therefore,
if code testing *is* eliminated, then we may as well also go to a simple
license application process, with, at most, an open-book test on rules and
regulations. That would then serve the needs of the dumbed-down
licensing process you would seem to prefer.

Come on, Larry. There are guys who can do 30, 40, or 50 wpm that can't
even *program* a modern transciever, let alone fix the damned thing
when one of the surface-mount components fails that is too small for
many of us to even *see* let alone solder one onto a PC board. These
rigs have been designed so the owners *can't* fix them, so that they
have to be dragged back to the dealer or shipped to the factory for
service, with appropriate outlay of cash since naturally the component
isn't going to fail until, oh, I dunno, about 6.2 seconds after the
warranty expires. Chances are that the "factory service" involves
removing the board the failed component is on and replacing it with a
brand new one because it isn't cost--effective to do component-level
repairs on mass-produced PC boards.

Following this, the rig gets packed up and shipped back to its owner,
who opens the package, curses a blue streak when he sees the bottom
line on the invoice, makes a New Years' Resolution to become a boat
anchor fanatic, then unpacks the rig and puts it back on the desk in
his shack. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing the unpacking can
copy at 50 wpm or doesn't know a dit from a dah, the result is going
to be the same because that's how the manufacturer designed it. If you
must blame somebody for that, Larry, then I respectfully suggest that
you place the blame not on the NCTAs, but on the design engineers at
YaeComWood, where it rightfully belongs - and remember that some of
them are hams, who apparently have professional-grade technical
knowledge, skills, and facilities, whether they ever passed a code
test or not.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...

Dee,

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why do you think it's
necessary for Len to *always* pepper his replies with personal insults. A
character flaw of some kind, maybe?

Arnie -
KT4ST


He does that to distract from the fact that he has no valid arguments and is
incapable of debating in any logical fashion. He is known to go onto long
tangents leading to incredible non-sequiters. Most of us have long ago
killfiled him because of it though there are a couple of people who continue
to wrangle with him.

I never see his posts anymore.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

Let's see... If I were to set up a bogus hotmail or AOL account, pick out
a
callsign from the callbook and then set up to access EchoLink on my
computer
and skip around the different systems, playing "Gangsta Rap" and golden
XXX-rated oldies by the "Fugs", and FBI recordings of rabbits being
slaughtered over distant EchoLink repeaters - just for fun - would I be
breaking any laws?

Remember that I would be accessing over the Internet, using a call I
picked
from a list, maybe even an inactive one. No radio involved, at least none
of
mine.

Who would be responsible for the transmissions on those distant repeaters?

Just what law or regulation would make it illegal to access EchoLink with
a
bogus callsign? I don't think there is one.

Should I cross-post this question to the newsgroups frequented by CB'ers,
Freebanders, FRS folk, etc? If not - Why not?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL



Most likely the control op of the repeater would be held accountable. Let's
not get them in trouble or force them to close down their repeaters.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

Actually, for the reasons already stated, I think they are concerned with
what is in the best interest of the ARS. The Amateur Radio Service is not
(or should not be) defined solely by CW/code, so that one mode does not
solely define what is in the best interest of the ARS. However, as it is,
testing of that one mode does continue to define the ARS. I personally
think
it is time for that to change.


Regardless of one's stance on the code, reviewing the history of the FCC
shows that they are NOT necessarily concerned with what's best for the ARS.
If they were, BPL would never have gotten as far as it has.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote ...

He does that to distract from the fact that he has no valid arguments and
is incapable of debating in any logical fashion. He is known to go onto
long tangents leading to incredible non-sequiters. Most of us have long ago
killfiled him because of it though there are a couple of people who continue
to wrangle with him. I never see his posts anymore.
__________________________________________________ ______________

And as of today, it's back to the KF with him. Maybe this time for two
years :-))

Arnie -
KT4ST

He does that to distract from the fact that he has no valid arguments

no, arguments that you cannot counter logically, leading to just the
same old bleeding heart crying tactics.

and is
incapable of debating in any logical fashion.

better check the man in the mirror.


He is known to go onto long
tangents leading to incredible non-sequiters.

if that's how you care to characterize logical debate;
you know, presenting an idea and then following
up with factual evidence to support it.


Most of us have long ago
killfiled him because .....

...... because you can't handle anybody posing
a differing opinion to the sacred, holy doctrine
you refuse to let go of regarding morse code testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Robert" wrote in message


That has nothing to do with amateur radio or a person's position thereof.
I
did exactly the same thing wth my kids.

Kim W5TIT



Kim, the PCTA crowd has proven itself, above and beyond all
other descriptions, nothing short of totally hypocritical.

When I present evidence and facts to support the NCTA crowd's
ideas, they claim that they are all spurious and non-applicable
conclusions.

Then, in the same breath, they attempt to use such a condescending
line of thought... just like Len pointed out, they just showed that
they think of those who do not care to have morse code training
crammed down thier throats as "children".

Clint
KB5ZHT