On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:49:01 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


I'm not talking about references or analogies, Clint. I'm talking about
Larry's specific use of the word "superior" to describe those with code
skills and the word "inferior" to describe those without such skills. Since
none of the pro-code crowd objected to his position, I now trying to see how
many others share the same opinions.

Dick Carroll and WA8ULX are two others who come to mind as having
exhibited that attitude. Thinking back a few years, I can think of at
least one other who I haven't seen posting here lately...definitely an
improvement to rrap!

On the other hand, and in all fairness, there are PCTAs who come to
mind who have not exhibited this attitude that I recall. Arnie Macy is
one - and I give Arnie credit because I really don't get the sense
that Arnie's position with respect to code testing is rooted in
anything other than a genuine love of the mode and a desire to see its
use continued in the ARS. With many of the other PCTAs in here, I get
the sense that there are some other agendas underlying what they post.

Whether I agree with someone's opinion or not, I can respect that
opinion if I feel that the person expressing it truly believes that
they're doing what they think is best for amateur radio. It's the hams
that are taking mean-spirited potshots at fellow hams over this issue
who I have difficulty respecting the opinions of, especially when
their statements on the subject give me the impression that there are
other motives afoot and that they could really care less about what's
best for the ARS as long as they get their way.

With all this talk about children vs. adults and superior vs.
inferior, I can't help observing that insistence upon getting one's
way regardless of the consequences to themselves or others is a
personality trait that is generally observed in, shall we say, less
mature individuals.

It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument
undoubtedly seems quite childish.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:36:04 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:


Do me a favor, John, and tell that to K2RSK next time you see him!


Who?

Larry was referring to Peter Liaros, K2RSK, a gentleman who both Larry
and myself know personally. Peter happens to be a rather gifted CW
operator - this is a guy who can and does operate 40m mobile CW and
who is good enough at it that he can do it while driving and not be a
hazard to other drivers. Peter undoubtedly would quickly disagree with
the notion that *nobody* uses CW anymore, and he would, of course, be
absolutely correct.

However, Larry's comment ignored the fact that what I posted was that
nobody *else* makes much use of CW anymore - i.e. within government,
commercial, military radio use, or anywhere else outside of the
ARS...which is also absolutely correct.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

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.

Ahem...kindly re-read the quoted material.

Clint called it a welfare program.

I called it a (all together now, class):

government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

Clint has subsequently elaborated on his comment, citing government
subsidizing of the agricultural industry as one example, demonstrating
that this is in fact what he had in mind as well.

Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the
manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test,
how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:42:19 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:

I guess what Im saying, and trying to be polite to the detractors (dummies
to lazy to learn Morse code) is don't confuse them with the facts, the are
to stupid to learn....and like I always like to say. Ya just cain't fix
stupid.

Dan/W4NTI

This from the guy who just claimed he doesn't claim to be superior to
the no-coders? Does that mean you also consider yourself a dummy,
lazy, and stupid too?

BTW, not all detractors are people who haven't learned the code.

Stupid *can* be fixed - through education. The problem that you seem
to have, on the other hand, remains a challenge to science.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:26:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

OK, Hans. I forgot how the pholks like you need such phucking (HansTM)
pictures drawn for them. Here you go:

No one should be kept out of the ARS who is willing to meet the requirements
that are in current use at the time they begin entry into the service/hobby.

Which (unfortunately) currently includes a code test. :-(

And the whole damned comment as a defense against the idea of those who
believe CW testing is a great way to filter out people from the ARS. Quit
being so stupid.

Personally, I understand what you were trying to say, and I agree with
your underlying premise; however, you could have done a better job of
expressing it more clearly.

Me too. I hope you phinally phucking phigured that out. Good phucking
grief.

Kim W5TIT

LOL...Kim, you musta had a bad today today. I've never seen you phreak
out like this over a relatively minor thing. :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On 28 Sep 2003 04:19:08 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Dwight:

You've spent the last couple of weeks attempting to re-attach some
kind of significance to the fact that "other" radio services no longer
"use code" (Morse code assumed). The only thing that has "lost touch
with reality" around here would seem to be your own brain.

Well, then allow me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to
provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental
purpose as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur
service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial
communication service, particularly with respect to
providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service
through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the
communications and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur
radio service of trained operators, technicians, and
electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique
ability to enhance international goodwill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "reality" is that this text is quoted from the FCC rules that
govern amateur radio wherever the FCC regulates amateur radio, which
last time I checked includes where you and I live. That's a "fact" you
can look up on the Internet if you think I quoted Part 97 incorrectly,
or dispute if you've recently moved to, oh, I dunno, Saudia Arabia
maybe. Now, then...

The FCC R&O on the last round of restructuring said the following (and
you can also look this up on the Internet if you think I'm misquoting
the FCC's R&O):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded by the
arguments of those commenters opposing reduction or elimination of the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a license requirement in the
amateur service.

snippage

We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a
licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of
the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern
communications systems, including personal communication services,
satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are
based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no
communication system has been designed in many years that depends on
hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code
by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in
communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will
allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract
technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country,
and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas
where the United States needs expertise.

snippage

We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide
emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press,
using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because
information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of
communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency
services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement
that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any
other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in
determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to
provide emergency communications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat what I posted earlier this evening in response to a post from
aomeone else in this NG: The writing is already on the FCC's wall for
elimination of the code test. The petitions (seven of them, I believe)
for rulemaking have been filed with FCC (including one by the NCVEC
whose input seems to have had considerable influence on FCC's
decisions with respect to the last restructuring) to eliminate the
code test.

So rather than wonder why Dwight is attaching significance to all of
this, I have to wonder why you and other PCTAs are trying to ignore
the "fact" that FCC did not buy your arguments about this the *last*
time around. What makes you think the same arguments are going to do
persuade FCC *this* time around?

In fact, it looks to me as if the code test has one foot out the door
and the other on a banana peel, whether you or I or anyone else likes
it or not, so this entire debate in rrap is rather pointless. Let's
find something worthwhile to discuss in this NG...like for example,
how do we refarm the subbands once there's no longer any need for 'em?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On 29 Sep 2003 02:21:52 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


I have given the "relevant facts" ad nauseum. I suggest you stop wasting
my time and start Google-ing.

The only facts that are truly relevant are the facts about what FCC's
decision will be with respect to petitions for rulemaking on
eliminating the code test.

One need not wade through the clumsy web-based interface at Google in
order to get a pretty good idea of what FCC's view might be. One need
only review FCC's report and order from the last time around.

If you'd like, I can post it for you, in its entirety and without
comment or snippage.

Since it is FCC that will make the decision in the end, that's pretty
much the only "relevant facts" anyone ought to need on the subject.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:21 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

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.

That doesn't seem to be how the FCC (which is where the final decision
on code testing will come from) views it:

"We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems,
including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and
high definition television systems, are based on digital communication
technologies. We also note that no communication system has been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the
ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems.
Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last
fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and
to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."

SOURCE -- The Federal Communications Commission
In the Matter of WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Amateur Service Rules.
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: December 22, 1999 Released: December 30, 1999

You may now proceed to thank me for finally clearing this up.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:22 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

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.

Now if only you'd follow suit, look into the FCC's report and order
from the last restructuring, and recognize what a lost cause it is
trying to retain a testing requirement that should have been
eliminated 25 years ago and will soon be eliminated regardless of how
may times the same arguments that didn't work last time are retyped
and refiled with FCC this time.

Qouth the FCC:

"We believe that an individual's ability to demonstrate increased
Morse code proficiency is not necessarily indicative of that
individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio
art. As a result, we find that such a license qualification rule is
not in furtherance of the purpose of the amateur service and we do not
believe that it continues to serve a regulatory purpose."

Yeah, I'll repeat:

"...such a license qualification rule is not in furtherance of the
purpose of the amateur service..."

If you'll be so cooperative as to tell us which part of that you have
difficulty comprehending, we'll try to help you.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:22 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Not necessary, Dwight. I was right the first time.

Heh...no you weren't - FCC dropped the 13 and 20WPM tests last time,
just like they'll drop the remaining vestiges of code testing this
time around.

There's still time for you to change your mind before a report & order
comes out, though...

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York