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

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

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h


bzzzzzt....

if this were true,

It is true. Did you read the survey and its results?

there wouldn't be such a push to remove it.

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than
5000
members worldwide, even with no dues, no expiration of membership and
having
been around over 7 years.



Oh, more than just NCI; ARRL seems to favor it,

ARRL hasn't formulated a new position yet. Their leadership is sitting on the
sidelines because no matter what they decide, some folks will be unhappy.

and in general most hams
do

How do you know?

The ARRL/READEX survey was a true random sample. What scientific survey or
polling have you done to verify your claim of "most hams"?

that aren't the ones clinging to desperate delusionary hopes in certain
internet NG's.

Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski.

Maybe it is. But if so, it's not because most hams want it to go. And on
particular, not because young hams want it to go.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

There should be some sort of beginner's license that an average 14 year
old honor roll student can get

That would require an extensive reworking of the current tests. We've got at
least one 6 year old General and an 8 year old passed the old Extra.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dick Carroll wrote:

You can imagine what my small hometown looked like when I returned after
5 years military time away in places like New York, Hartford, Philly,
Chicago, Paris and Frankfurt.

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm...

Probably looked like good old HOME! 8^)

After growing up in metro Philly, I found the Finger Lakes region of New York
State much more to my liking. But the job is here.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski.

Maybe it is. But if so, it's not because most hams want it to go.

mmm, yea, it pretty much *is*.

Unless you are putting more into what was typed or seeing it completely
different, no, I didn't admit more than what I wanted to.....

People in the teen age groups are still forming their identities and
becoming what they might be for the rest of their lives typically. If you
have differences with the word "moldable," then that is your problem.
Influenced maybe a better word then??

Ryan, KC8PMX


I wasn't argueing about the definition of the term "moldable", really... and
actually influenced would be a bit less condescending and not give you
such an appearance of wanting to be dictatorial... I was putting more
emphasis on the part that said "..into the hams that *we* want them to
be."

....heh, and people a while back took exception to my use of the term
"jack booted CW nazis".

Clint

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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

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

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h


bzzzzzt....

if this were true,

It is true. Did you read the survey and its results?

there wouldn't be such a push to remove it.

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than
5000
members worldwide, even with no dues, no expiration of membership and
having
been around over 7 years.



Oh, more than just NCI; ARRL seems to favor it,

ARRL hasn't formulated a new position yet. Their leadership is sitting on the
sidelines because no matter what they decide, some folks will be unhappy.

Prior to and just after the IARU decision on S25 policy, ARRL was
ALL FOR CODE TESTING.

That didn't make the NCTA happy.

ARRL still doesn't have any more membership than a quarter of all
licensed US amateurs. I don't believe in coincidences.

Faced with the inevitable worldwide reaction and subsequent action
at WRC-03, ARRL just OPTS OUT, goes neutral, won't take a stand
either way.

Their $12 million income (2002) is at stake. ARRL doesn't exist
without funding. The ONLY people the ARRL is worried about is
the present membership which is skewed towards PCTA thinking.

ARRL membership is still only a quarter of all US licensed amateurs.

They aren't a majority. Their decisions are not a "consensus."


Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski.

Maybe it is. But if so, it's not because most hams want it to go. And on
particular, not because young hams want it to go.

Your OPINION, senior.

Do you have any good and true statistical polling to back up your
OPINION?

Strange, the news doesn't indicate any group of young people
demonstrating for the retention of the amateur license code test.
Nor the elimination of the amateur license code test.

Why do you say things about the "young hams" that you know not
of?

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your
comment is out of line.

Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others,
that you should spend more time off-line.

Thanks for the grin, Leonard. Might I suggest that you follow your own
advice?

If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is
a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem.

It's no one's "problem," senior.

U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy.

....and no one has indicated belief that it is. None of that is your
concern. You aren't involved in any way.

Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a
few.

You've got a pretty good imagination yourself, old timer. You keep, for
example, imagining that you are involved in amateur radio.

I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite
the many claims of NCI mavens.

Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate
with the rest of the world's frequency.

Get in tune.

Get "Tune In The World With Amateur Radio".

Dave K8MN

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership
numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members
worldwide (snip)


Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove
code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on
occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years.

"Ranting"?

Perhaps I could have worded my post better.

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed, without
any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the
opposite.

The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have joined
NCI.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end
code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including
some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the
comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of publicity
in the amateur press.

Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much shorter
time.

To now
try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many
others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they signed
on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks?

Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow
make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others
outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim.

I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way.

The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in
light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into
question a person's sanity.

How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys showing the
opposite?

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:


Fun fact:

When the results of the 1996 ARRL/READEX survey were tabulated, one of the
results shown was the support for/opposition to code testing broken down by
age
group.

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, but the *most*
procodetest
group were the youngest! Hams under 24 at the time were 85% procodetest/15%
anticodetest. Almost a 6 to 1 ratio!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Very interesting, indeed. This could provide excellent support to replies
to the code testing petitions recently assigned RM numbers by the FCC.
Can you provide a URL?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership
numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members
worldwide (snip)


Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove
code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on
occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many
years.

"Ranting"?

I have to agree with Jim's ???... Jim has never been one
to "rant."

Perhaps I could have worded my post better.

I didn't see anything "ranting about it."

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed,
without
any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the
opposite.

The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have
joined
NCI.

So? The issue isn't to be decided by some unilateral vote of
only licensed hams. The issue is one of appropriate regulatory
test requirements.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end
code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including
some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the
comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of
publicity
in the amateur press.

Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much
shorter
time.

One could also argue that most hams don't really care that code testing
ends...certainly not enough to file comments that indicate a desire
to keep code....and probably because they know the end result
is only a matter of time.

To now
try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many
others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they
signed
on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks?

What difference does it make anyway?

Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will
somehow
make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others
outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen,
Jim.

I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way.

The "push" has certainly been far more than just NCI. If it
was only NCI, how do you explain the ITU treaty change by
with not one vote against the change...and how do you explain
the IARU possision...again, almost a unanomous set of votes in
each region except for a couple of no votes and abstentions.

The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that,
in
light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into
question a person's sanity.

How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys
showing the
opposite?

The FCC doesn't care about percentages...and it shouldn't. See above
my comment about the decision being what is proper test requirments as
opposed to what any majority of hams may want. Additionally,
I never saw any true survey that could be justifiable stated as
accurately reflecting ALL hams.


And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in
July?

Process. Better in the government mindset to open the comments and
see what comes forward. So far, NOTHING new has been offered
by PCTAs that hasn't already been sifted through and discounted
by the FCC in prior reviews (e.g. NPRM 98-143 primarily).

Without doubt, absent the treaty requirement, the ball is totally in
the PCTA's court to justify keeping any code test...and so far
there's nothing new.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK