In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh heh....tell 'im you'll get back to him when he
has something intelligent to say. I told Larry that
a couple of weeks ago and, except to tell him I
wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in meeting
him or most others in this newsgroup, I've not
posted a thing to him since. I just can't find the
"intelligent" part of his posts.


He does have the habit of trying to twist things when the discussion
doesn't go his way and I simply don't have the time for that nonsense.

Dwight:

Yeah, in a way, you're right. In order to remove the usual NCTA spin
placed on everything you post, I guess I do have to "twist" things in
the right direction.

If he
doesn't want to discuss the issue seriously, he can discuss it with himself.

Sooo, you, like Kim, are going to admit defeat as well?

Kim says my posts lack intelligence. I guess, from her POV, that may
be true. She obviously defines "intelligence" as being in agreement with
her, or supporting whatever she says or does. I can, therefore, understand
why she would want to avoid further debate with someone with whom she
would have to make an effort to defend herself. I'll say one thing for Kim --
she knows how to look into a mirror and see a lost cause.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

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

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after all?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

I've already answered that question many times, but the short form is
that without code testing, there is no incentive for radio amateurs to
learn the code at all.

bzzzt

substituting your opinion for facts.
logic says that if this case is true, then all cases must be true; no ham
would learn ANY mode if not forced to be profeciency-tested on
it first.

Just don't take it personally and get vendictive and beligerant on the
air when the remove the testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT


well, if you listen to fellow PCTA types then the only conclusion
is that it IS a governement subsidation.... JUST like the farm subsidies
where the government artifically keeps the prices of food propped up
by buying all the excess crop that isn't sold at a given price instead
of letting the free market determine it.

In terms of ham radio, when the PCTA types say "it's the only
incentive to get people interested in CW, therefore we have to
make people learn it" you are essentially saying "if that product
(morse code) isn't purchased willingly at market price (as
to whether or not the individual is INTERESTED in learning it
in the first place) then the governement (FCC) will subsidize it
by purchasing the excess that doesn't sell (make the remainder
of the hams who don't want to learn it do so against thier will).

Pretty clear analogy.

If you look at it as a welfare program, then all the same it is
equally deserving of criticism.... if a system can't make it's own
way and sell itself and perpetuate itself, you never do it any
good by artificially keeping it alive, it'll never stand on it's own
two feet proverbially speaking.

The government, by the way, STILL buys insande amounts
of helium due to the strategic value of blimbs & derigables
and pumps it underground in northern texas. Yes, you read
that right.. WWI technology is being subsidized due to the
fact that it was ONCE useful, but since it's STILL on the
books as a government hand out, it's STILL purchased in
mass quantities

Cite: Martin L. Gross, "Washington Racket: Government
Waste from A to Z"

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) In fact, I would dare say that if there is any
"mental anguish" in this forum, it would seem to have
been expressed almost exclusively by the NCTA's,
who, after all, started all this (snip)


Too bad Google doesn't go back that far. It would be interesting to see
who really "started all this" in these newsgroups. Of course, I suspect it
was a member of the pro-code crowd - since the FCC started dropping code
years ago, the no-code crowd would have had little reason to even bring the
subject up. The pro-code crowd, on the other hand, started complaining
before the FCC even changed the rules (the rumor of a rule change was
enough).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Sooo, you, like Kim, are going to admit defeat
as well? (snip)


There is no defeat to admit to, Larry. I presented the facts. You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth. That pretty much ended the
discussion. However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have something
worthwhile to say. Of course, you don't really have to say anything
intellegent, just something worthy of even a passing reply.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Well, that's quite a roundabout way of admitting that
you don't know what you're talking about when you
insist that other radio services which don't use Morse/
CW have some relevance to the ARS. And since you
can't logically support your position, it's easier for you
to bail out. (snip)


Trying to twist what I said again, Larry? I never said anything about the
other radio services having any relevance beyond the fact that many once
used code (which was relevant to the ARS at the time) and their present lack
of code use (which has relevance today). If you choose to ignore that past
and present relevance, that's certainly your prerogative. However, by doing
so, your position has simply lost touch with reality.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
No, Larry, he didn't say that. You misquoted him. He
said, "...nobody ELSE uses CW..."

Ah HA!!! So, the fact that amateur radio operators DO
use CW *is* relevant to the code testing debate, and the
fact that that the other radio services which don't, isn't!
Thanks for finally clearing that up.


Huh? What the heck are you talking about, Larry? I beginning to think
you're finally lost your mind.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

I'm asking why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS or
FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single operating mode
(it's
the only mode specifically skill tested)?

....because the communication mode must be subsidized in order to
continue to exist, as many PCTA'rs have admitted "if people aren't
forced to learn it, they won't and it'll disappear"... so you wonder
how they can also question our use of the term "archaic" or "outdated",
saying "have you listened to that half of the band? there's PLENTY
of CW!" .... if that's so, then how could the mode disappear if not
forced upon people?

very contradictory terms, like most PCTA arguments.

"I had to be tested on it, therefore so should YOU!"

Too bad Google doesn't go back that far. It would be interesting to see
who really "started all this" in these newsgroups. Of course, I suspect it
was a member of the pro-code crowd - since the FCC started dropping code
years ago, the no-code crowd would have had little reason to even bring
the
subject up.

BINGO, just as i've said many times.... the PCTA accuses the NCTA of doing
all the crying and whimpering and flame war starting, but WHY would the
NCTA have to do that since the tide of events in on thier side? It can only
be logically concluded that the PCTA'rs were screaming against what
they see as an injustice (in thier view of things).

Facts are, a person is FAR more likely to call a dealership and complain if
he feels the car he just bought was a lemon, than to call it and compliment
them
if the car they just bought was a real bargain and exceeded thier
expectations.

The pro-code crowd, on the other hand, started complaining
before the FCC even changed the rules (the rumor of a rule change was
enough).


What's WORSE is that most of them won't debate anymore after starting
the crying fits, they put the people on ignore that try to discuss the
matter with them..... how's THAT for reasonable?

Just imagine how bad it's going to get when the last vestiges of it are
removed entirely.

Clint
KB5ZHT