N2EY wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid.


Your description of my analogy remains inaccurate.

ahhh, flaccidity!


Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.


The regulations affect those who are hams the most.

I always thought that self determination was a good thing.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio.


That's a passable analogy.

In most of the public parks I know, what you can do is limited. And
you need a permit/license to do certain things in the park.


What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."


No, that's not it at all. You misunderstand what Bert and I are
saying.

Not to mention, a drastic oversimplification of the whole subject.
Comparison of a technical avocation such as the ARS to something like
buying a pavilion permit so you can have a picnic in one, falls apart
pretty quickly.


What we're saying is that on the single issue of continued Morse code
testing, it would be interesting to know what the opinions of *all*
licensed US hams, (not just a vocal minority) really are. That
includes amateurs of *all* license classes, not just those who have
passed a code test.

But they might not like what they hear.

To use your park analogy, it's like polling those who actually use a
park whether a specific change should be made.

DOH!

Nowhere is it proposed that the ability of others to comment would be
changed.

Of course this is simply a discussion point because there's no one who
would actually pay the expenses to conduct such a poll.

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA?


Nope.

I'm saying that I find it incredible that the allegedly most qualified
candidate for the highest office in the most populous and most in debt
state in
the Union is a movie actor with no real experience as a government
official.

I think it fits like a glove! Loonyland is a unique place, and needs to
be governed by unique people.


The Constitution contains
no such language.


I know. And nowhere do I say it should be a requirement. But do you
*really* think the new governor is going to better than the old one?

He has more experience wit' the ladies!

Am I the only one that sees the amazing hypocrisy in that little gem?

a whole bunch of snippage


You're avoiding the central issue. I think you know that if such a
poll were actually taken, you might not like the results.

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines". I'm just about
certain that the more non-amateurs included in any poll, the lower the
support for Morse code, and vice versa.

Let's have NASCAR fans determine ARS policy. And we can determine
NASCAR's rules. 8^)

More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

Perhaps "I've got mine, here is yours, have fun!" would be more
appropriate?


Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?

Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
wrote.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N2EY wrote:
(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.


I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

Almost all Americans can become hams without a code test. Been that way for
almost 13 years.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.

So you assume that the goals and purposes of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?

And let's consider a basic principle of Hans' "learner's permit" proposal:
forced upgrading.

If FCC adopted his proposal, all new hams would have to either get Extras
within 10 years or leave ham radio. He's said that if 80% of newcomers drop out
under such a system, that's OK with him.

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to pass the Extra
written within isn't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to
pass the Extra written within isn't.

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word 'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to
pass the Extra written within isn't.

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word
'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Having to pass the Extra is both unreasonable and unnecessary to be a ham or
remain a ham.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

So you assume that the goals and purposes
of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?


Yes.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

N2EY wrote:

(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.



I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.

Well, I don't know if disagreeing with the point is intentionally
"missing it" but okay.


This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans).

If you want to be more precise, they belong to the world.


As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

How you gonna educate them? Most people wouldn't have a clue what we
would be talking about. Do you propose an education system without
either Pro or Anti-code bias?

Should this poll include more input altogether, such as business
interests that would probably prefer us pesky hams to just go away?

Would the results of a poll consisting of people who knew nothing about
the ARS be representative of anything.

How are you going to approach anything like a knowledgable poll pool?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

How you gonna educate them? Most people
wouldn't have a clue what we would be talking
about. Do you propose an education system
without either Pro or Anti-code bias?

(snip)

How are you going to approach anything like
a knowledgable poll pool?


Actually, I'm not proposing anything at all. In my opinion, the FCC is
doing a fine job of regulating the Amateur Radio Service. If someone is
going to propose a poll to influence that, then the poll should take into
account everything the FCC must take into account (that includes all
Americans, not just those currently licensed in a particular radio service).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N2EY wrote:
(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.

I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies,
and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish
what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Why Dwight, you doubt that all hams wouldn't "vote" based on common
sense, logic and what is rational as a requirement in the 21st century??
:-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

Why Dwight, you doubt that all hams wouldn't
"vote" based on common sense, logic and
what is rational as a requirement in the 21st
century?? :-) :-)


Well.... No comment!


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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