"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...


But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin?

Nope.

I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by
contemporary
modern society" was implied.

Wasn't clear at all.

If not, the part about "get thier license"
pretty much
removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding.

The word is spelled "THEIR", Clint. Turn on your spellchecker if you can't
remember it.

Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

that's what kim said.

No, she didn't.

And, btw, what makes you think Hans is "PCTA"?



Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the
part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am...

Oh well...

Musta caught me at an inference-compromised moment, Kim. It wasn't
clear to me when I read it.

However, you have since rectified the ambiguity, so that the statement
would now read something like:

"NO ONE who has passed the required tests should be kept out of the
ARS"

How's that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

: .....phucking .... phinally phucking ....Good phucking

I love it when you talk romantic.

73 Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte
--
"All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be
construed."

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:

I happen to think it's a case of turf defending...the PCTAs feel they
must defend their exclusive little slices of the RF spectrum at all
costs, regardless of what harm is done to the ARS in the process.
They'll kill the mother to save the baby.

What is a permitted method of expression, John?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
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.

by that logic, most of the General and Extra written exams are also
"government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism" and/or
"a welfare program".

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.

What major industry in this country is *not* subsidized in some way?

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?

Reallocate them as special digital experimental subband. Allow any
documented digital mode that will fit in the subbands to be used
there. Including digital voice, image, and yes, Morse Code/CW. No
arbitrary limits on occupied bandwidth or symbol rate as long as the
signal fits inside.

If somebody wants to run "PSK-3100" and they can document it for FCC,
fine, let 'em have at it.

Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those
four little slots.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net writes:

WHO is doing the name calling?

Both sides.

it's not the NCTA group calling
the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults
using spurious comparisons.

it's not the PCTA group calling the NCTA "elitist", "arrogant", "luddite",
"stuck in the past", "jackbooted thugs", "stoked on morsemanship", and an
assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. Like "nazis".

I think you'll be told "That's different".

Of course.

Somehow, some way, some
people are convinced that since they are "right" that civil behavior is
not necessary.

As demonstrated by Bruce, Len and a host of others on both sides.

Problem is not one of our positions is right or wrong. Its all opinions.

I disagree. Some positions *are* simply wrong. For example, polluting
the electromagnetic spectrum with BPL noise when many other, better
technologies exist is simply *wrong*.

Other positions, like the code test thingie, are really all about
opinions and nothing more.

But then it is easier to just lump everyone together into two groups.

Sure. "Us" and "Them".

Then dehumanize them, so that whatever you do is okay, and ends justify
means.

And the answer is to refuse to play that game.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

What about thier constant use of the term "CBplusser" and
so forth...

There is only one person who uses that term. He also claims to be 305 years
old.

What is it with the application of one person's pejorative to everyone?

You mean like the person who called us 'nazis'?

I've never called anyone a name here, and yet you and I are assigned the
infamous "they" and "their".

Of course.

In fact, if you really want to get certain people mad, *don't* call
them a name.

I don't know if THEY have kept up to date on ham
radio violation records, but the vast majority of code & rule violaters are
hams who've been in the hobby for many many years, have advanced licenses
(advanced, extra) and thus have passed morse code testing.

Your source, please? I read the "FCC enforcement letters", and there seems to
be a wide distribution of experience, license classes, etc.

One thing is quite obvious, though: the vast majority of enforcement actions
are against hams using voice modes. When's the last time a ham using CW in the
CW/data subbands was the target of an FCC enforcement action?

I did a little research project on this a year or so ago. No vast
majority of any license class as far as perps go. There were a bit more
of the higher classes, but not significantly so. Techs were real close,
and then there were the unlicensed. I'd have to say there was no
significant difference in the license class as far as rule violations go.

Remember too that HF violations are usually audible over a much wider
area than VHF/UHF violations. The W6NUT machine is a local/regional
problem, while 3950 and 14313 are much more widespread.

How many of the enforcement actions were against hams using CW in the
CW/data subbands?

The hams I
have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever
met. WHY? Because they KNEW where they came from, how nice it is
up here, and have thus a respect for the advancement into a more
serious hobby.

Some of the best and the worst hams I have known came from 11 meters.

The foulest mouths i've ever heard were on 75 meters ssb, and one ham
who's call I won't mention was denied advancement by hollingsworth HIMSELF
(you can look it up on ARRL records).. he lived at the time in conroe,
texas....
he use to get just slobbering drunk on the radio and really raise hell;
cussing,
insulting, playing music, everything.

And what mode was he using?

Ahem...

He passed the code requirements and
written exam to advance to an even higher license, but recieved a letter
from Hollingworth saying "you are not being given your upgrade, and
furthermore, never will until I recieve a written letter from you explaining
why you feel you DESERVE one."

Was he using CW to do all that?

THAT ham was a long time veteran ham who had already passed a
CW test. Therefore, any argument brought up that CW testing is
a "yahoo filter" as they call it is wrong. It doesn't stop any such thing.

He'd also passed several *written* tests on regulations and operating
practices. Those written tests didn't stop his behavior either. Shall we dump
the writtens because they are not a "yahoo filter" either?

No test can be a perfect "filter".

And never will be. There are incompetent and even evil doctors. And yet
they have one of the most rigorous entry requirements there are.

Exactly.

No requirements are needed to operate a transciever on HF.

?? I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence.

We have to
decide how much knowledge is needed. My only wish is that the
requirements are enough that I know that the person is highly interested
in the service.

Hard to measure "interest".

Fun fact: a few years back, the FCC modified a General class ham's
license as part of an enforcement action so that he was limited to
using CW only.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for
and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate
a tad more effort and dedication than passing written
exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The
5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require
some serious studying effort over approx two or three
weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual
serious about earning HF privileges. For those who
are not, the no-code Technician license is available.
It's really quite simple.


Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated
effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so
on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS.

Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't
give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only
want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show
of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't
any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:


It occurred to me that if, at any point during the events leading up
to the first punch being thrown, either one of the two boys had
decided he was above this sort of thing and walked away from it,
neither of them would have ended up smelling like dog dung. Too bad
for them that neither of them was smart enough to do that, or at least
to suggest that they pick a cleaner lawn to fight on. Since neither of
them did, they both share the responsibility for the fact that they
both came up looking and smelling like s**t, no matter which of them
tossed the original smart remark that started it all.

Perhaps you grew up in a different area, John. When I was a kid, we
moved to a different little town. I was getting picked on by some of the
kids, a lot of it in places where I *couldn't* walk away.

My parents always told me that it "took a bigger man to walk away from a
fight". In a backward way, they were right, as I had to be pretty brave
to get my dose of punches, kicks and rock dodging every day.

Then one day, I decided *no more*, and shall we say, surprised the
first kid that came after me. It cost him and myself an expulsion, but I
made enough impression on the bullies that I had no more trouble from them.

I don't think the Bully analogy is quite apt.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:

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


WHO is doing the name calling?

Both sides.


it's not the NCTA group calling
the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults
using spurious comparisons.

it's not the PCTA group calling the NCTA "elitist", "arrogant", "luddite",
"stuck in the past", "jackbooted thugs", "stoked on morsemanship", and an
assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. Like "nazis".

I think you'll be told "That's different".


Of course.


Somehow, some way, some
people are convinced that since they are "right" that civil behavior is
not necessary.


As demonstrated by Bruce, Len and a host of others on both sides.


Problem is not one of our positions is right or wrong. Its all opinions.


I disagree. Some positions *are* simply wrong. For example, polluting
the electromagnetic spectrum with BPL noise when many other, better
technologies exist is simply *wrong*.

Okay, I'll amend that. I was thinking of test requirements. I'd agree
that BPL is technically bankrupt and an idea of dubious "smarts".




Other positions, like the code test thingie, are really all about
opinions and nothing more.

But then it is easier to just lump everyone together into two groups.


Sure. "Us" and "Them".


Then dehumanize them, so that whatever you do is okay, and ends justify
means.


And the answer is to refuse to play that game.

Pretty much.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the
part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am...

Oh well...

Kim W5TIT

It is the fact that people think certain things are "implied" that keeps the
lawyers mighty busy. These days, if something isn't stated, it isn't
considered part of the meaning or intent of the passage.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE