N2EY wrote:

What exactly does "time to move on" mean here?

"Time to move on:"
A phrase used by Democrats as a means to change or stop a debate,
when the illogic, stupidity or immorality
of their positions are exposed.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message


Hitler's justification for invading Poland, Czechoslovokia, etc. Had
to have room for all those advanced Ayrans to spread out and thrive.

I think in this case Larry is referring to all the techno-microphone
jocks.

Dick


Actually the term originated a century before Adolf did his thing. It goes
as far back as the mid 19th century. When the Kaiser used it against the
other European countries. Again in WW1 and later picked up by da fuerer.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

I re-downloaded the file and forwarded it. Anybody else have trouble? Let me
know and I'll email it to you. It did take a bit to get it downloaded.

Maybe that Emmaus BPL test site is the culprit, Carl ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Jim is it considered good form to quote extracts from this doc in the
newsgroup?


I've read it, and frankly I find it quite "interesting". But I'd love to
quote parts of it with my responses


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:


Jim is it considered good form to quote extracts from this doc in the
newsgroup?

Never mind, I've seen plenty of qoutes from the doc..... 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
[snip

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are
always
referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are
also
shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data
modes at
all.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST ... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]

Carl -wk3c

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Jim is it considered good form to quote extracts from this doc in the
newsgroup?

If the quotes are accurate, and properly referenced so that anyone interested
can look them up, I don't see why not.

The whole paper is on a public website and deals with a public policy issue.

I've read it, and frankly I find it quite "interesting". But I'd love to
quote parts of it with my responses

I'm working on a comprehensive response to send to the authors.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"easiest mode to implement" is not quite the same as "easiest, simplest
mode, with the easiest to build equipment"

Here's the difference:

"easiest mode to implement" means open the box, plug in the radio,
connect
antenna, and push the mike button.

That's what 95% of new hams today are doing already.

"easiest, simplest mode, with the easiest equipment to build" means
simpler
circuitry requirements, only an on/off "switch" to key the circuitry
rather
than the more complex microphone unit, and so on.

Like any CB radio is currently constructed.
All we have to do now is "channelize" the HF bands.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , David Stinson
writes:

N2EY wrote:

What exactly does "time to move on" mean here?

"Time to move on:"

A phrase used by Democrats as a means to change or stop a debate,
when the illogic, stupidity or immorality
of their positions are exposed.

Not just Democrats.....;-)
73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
[snip

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are
always
referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are
also
shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data
modes at
all.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST

Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was supposed to
mean.

... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.

Exactly!

This thread is meant to be about that NCVEC paper - particularly the parts that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em into 10
kHz and have fun.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from what I
can see.

The fact remains that the NCVEC paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).

[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]

Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

73 de Jim, N2EY