I misplaced my can of 'Thread Be Gone', does someone know where I can get a
replacement?

JEP wrote:

SNIP again.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite
frequency.
I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs
that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from
160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station
rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle),
and a QRP
station I use for backpack/travel use.)

How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods
(weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and
well-prepared are you?

Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try
another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here.

Carl - wk3c

The bites don't seem to drying up at all. I found a few nibbles yet.
The Extras on the no code board have to 5wpm Extras. Couldn't be real
Extras that had at least one exam in front of a FCC examiner. Passed
at least one test at a real FCC examination site. Actually learned
radio theory.
The radios I own are not your concern. I will say I own enough to
operate all bands and modes. Can stay active as long as some kind of
power is still available.Also have had a Ham ticket long enough to
know exactly what the ARRL has really done with the incentive crap
from the 60's. Remember, it was Maxim not the ARRL thst got the
frequencies back after WW 1. Maxim was a mover and shaker, unlike the
deadheads in there now---The Good Ole Boy Club! You guys keep nibbling
because you are afraid to admit you are wrong.

N8KDV wrote:

I need to find a can of 'Thread Be Gone'...

What reader are you using? You can make this disappear in an instant!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote
Only on a one-time basis.

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class"
would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows
rules.

Doesn't bother me. It may just be something we live through to
get to a new, more rational licensing scheme.

Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can
reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive
than the current General discriminates against new applicants.

They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could
certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to
simplify the overall license structure.

Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to
prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of
underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of
amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience.

The FCC doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof would
be on those that oppose what was done. Government regulations have a
presumption of legality to start with.

The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."

Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Cheerios and bran flakes to you to,

Happy new year too.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
SNIP
YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe
it
is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA.
However,
there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.
The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions
and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe
to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can
be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for
Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than
squeaked.

Fair enough.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I wrote:

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if
the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or
tomorrows rules.

Bill Sohl blew it off with ......


Doesn't bother me.


Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

K0HB

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it
is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However,
there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked.

73 es HNY de Bert
WA2SI

Yep, the dumbing down of America. The masses can't pass the test so we
will make the test easier. Notice how they skirt the issue of having
passed any test in front of a FCC examiner. The VEC program is another
farce. Why not put the little piece of paper in a corn flakes box. At
least you would have breakfast.

Just like you should! I'm amazed by the number of hams that seem to
thing that the ARRL has to agree with all their personal opinions. I
wonder how many of those type are married! 8^)


I wouldn't say they should have to agree 100% but logic would dictate that
at least about 1/2 of all or so should be in agreement.

I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.

Prove it. Prove it without circumstantial or coincidental evidence.


Ryan KC8PMX

--
"The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any
more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but
to make him a priest."

On 01 Jan 2004 14:56:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

And the question remains - was that bailout a "conservative" or a "liberal"
action?

I define a "conservative" as someone who wants the government to
stay out of his/her life but to be on call to squash any opponent of
his/hers.

I define a "liberal" as what I was in 1955...... ggg

Neither have any bearing on what those labels are applied to today.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:44:10 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

Every liberal I
hear from is always looking to use more of my money to create
larger and more involved government programs to do ever more
for the "poor, unwashed public".

Nah...this "liberal" is always looking to use more of eveyone's
money to create larger and more involved government programs to do
ever more for me and my family... ggg

Happy New Year, Bill -

Lay your hand on the radio and feel the healing power of the B+.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JEP" wrote in message
e.com...
SNIP

YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe

it

is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA.

However,

there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."


Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.

Not a good bet, Carl! Good thing nobody will take you up on it.

For one thing, the Tech license lost its code test Feb 14, 1991, not in 1990.
But that's a minor point.

Take a look at the number of new hams per year and the growth of US licenses
from Feb 1991 until today. Then compare to the number of new hams per year and
the growth in a time period of the same length previous to Feb 1991. You'll see
that that the Tech's loss of its code test in Feb 1991 did cause an increase in
the number of new hams. But without that increase, we would not be down to
340,000 US hams by any reasonable scenario. Heck, there are ~423,000 US hams
today who are *not* Techs - that's a lot more than 1/2 the ~683,000.

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on
the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the
ones that violate the rules.

Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life.

A true liberal desires the least practical government intervention in life
as well.

ROTFLMAO...

Why?

Guess I have truly never met such a "true liberal." Every liberal I
hear from is always looking to use more of my money to create
larger and more involved government programs to do ever more
for the "poor, unwashed public".

That's the same as what conservatives want - except that their definitions of
the "poor unwashed public" are different.

The devil is in the details of what "least practical government
intervention" really means.

Just one example: The government used tax dollars to rescue Chrysler about
20 years ago.

As K2ASP pointed out, this was in the form of loan guarantees, not actual loans
to Chrysler. But the fact remains that if Chrysler had gone under the Feds
would have been on the hook for those loan guarantees.

Now - was the bailout a "liberal" move to save workers' jobs and try to
manage
the economy? Some "conservatives" would say that companies that get in
trouble
should be allowed to fail in a 'free market' and not propped up with tax
dollars.

OTOH, was the bailout a "conservative" move to save investors' money? Or
to
give some help to an industry bedeviled with safety, pollution and economy
regulations *and* the double whammy of foreign competiton and two oil
crises?

Some "liberals" would say that Big Business should not be propped up with
tax dollars. (Ma's Diner wouldn't get such a bailout)

See how it's all in the definitions? Some would call the Chrysler bailout and
other
similar deals "corporate welfare". Others would say they were a smart move that
resulted in more jobs, more economic growth and more ROI for investors.

Take a good look at any of those government programs for the "poor unwashed
public"
and you'll see that most of them can be viewed either way.

Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing.

Most "conservatives", anyway. The exact same is said by most "liberals".

Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Not perfectly, anyway.

Not even very imperfectly.

Consider the old "ABC" scheme, though.

There were basically two levels of license back then - Class A, with all privs,
and Class B/C, who could not work 'phone on any HF band between 3 and 25 MHz.
(Class Bs and Cs could only work 'phone on 160, 11, 10 and VHF/UHF).

Both licenses required the same code tests. The Class A required the Class B
written *and* a more advanced written test that focused on theory, particularly
'phone techniques. Class A also required a year's experience as a Class B or C,
and the tests for Class A (all of them - code and theory) had to be passed in
front of an FCC examiner.

The philosophy (as I understand it) was that it took more technical knowledge
and practical know-how to put a 'phone transmitter on the air properly. So the
FCC required more tests and experience before a ham could use 'phone on the
most-crowded and longest-range phone ham bands then in use.

Of course there were all sorts of unintended consequences. Hams who had little
or no interest in 'phone had no reason to go for Class A. 160, 11 and 10 were
busy with Class B 'phone ops. The system worked a real hardship on hams who
lived a ways from an FCC exam point, too.

Buit maybe that sort of system is a starting point for what you're talking
about, Bill.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Your observation
was absent any clarification that it was only YOUR observation,
unsubstantiated by any true facts.

Get you head out the sand and look around. See
all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing
nothing? is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's? Are new
folks welcomed? Is help provided?
If so then consider yourself lucky.

One aspect of almost all hobbies" is the cost to play
which often results in an older cross-section of participants.
The same is true for antique cars, model railroading, etc.
Add to that the available "free time" which most older
folks, especially retirees, have.


My observation is as substantiated as yours. You can't prove anything.
Regarding cost to play, Ham radio only costs what you want it to cost.
I have put together a station for under $100 US. Not new and certainly
not the station I really wanted but it did work and I did QSO many
other stations. Cost is not a factor. Free time is what you want of
it. At 20 I had time if I wanted to take it and at 50 I can still find
time for the important things or what is important at this time.
Regarding costs, ther lays part of the problem. In the 60's I always
wanted that Drake '4' line. Couldn't afford it. Settled on a used
equipment and homebrewed many accy's. Todays out of the box operator
couldn't solder a connection if their life depended on it. Can't
trouble shoot a broken receiver or transmitter. Can't draw a circiut
for a simple crystal controlled transmitter, can't figure the length
of a half wave dipole, can't scrounge parts, etc.....

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions
and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe
to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can
be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for
Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than
squeaked.

Fair enough.

Indeed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.

Not a good bet, Carl! Good thing nobody will take you up on it.

For one thing, the Tech license lost its code test Feb 14, 1991, not in
1990.
But that's a minor point.

You're right, of course ... the Proceeding was in 90, but the changes
didn't take effect until 91.

Take a look at the number of new hams per year and the growth of US
licenses
from Feb 1991 until today. Then compare to the number of new hams per year
and
the growth in a time period of the same length previous to Feb 1991.
You'll see
that that the Tech's loss of its code test in Feb 1991 did cause an
increase in
the number of new hams. But without that increase, we would not be down to
340,000 US hams by any reasonable scenario. Heck, there are ~423,000 US
hams
today who are *not* Techs - that's a lot more than 1/2 the ~683,000.

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose started
out as Techs and have since upgraded? How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace them.

Maybe 50% is a slight stretch, but I'd guess not by a lot.


Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Out of 10 years of NCTs, only a few years worth would fall into that
category.
I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of 2000 are
now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

73,
Carl - wk3c

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

Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,
what do
we use?

Incentive?

Sure. Your proposed two-class system is an incentive system. The
incentives to upgrade are two: more power and the prospect of being
put off the air at the end of 10 years.

You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified.

That's in direct contradiction to your "no renewal" entry level
license idea.

Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?

Whether or not a person is qualified depends in part the privileges
granted by the license. A person could be qualified for a license that
grants some privileges but unqualified for a license that grants all
privileges. Which is the reason for having more than one license class
in the first place.

This
incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are
liberal ideas whose time has gone.

Since the license and test rules restrict individuals far more than
organizations, that would make those notions "conservative".

73 de Jim, N2EY

Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JEP" wrote in message
e.com...
SNIP

YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe

it

is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA.

However,

there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with
some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."


Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?

Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is
no reason for states to test on manual gearbox
autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those
that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing
intervention needed from the state.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 01 Jan 2004 14:56:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

And the question remains - was that bailout a "conservative" or a "liberal"
action?

I define a "conservative" as someone who wants the government to
stay out of his/her life but to be on call to squash any opponent of
his/hers.

I define a "liberal" as what I was in 1955...... ggg

Neither have any bearing on what those labels are applied to today.

HAW! Well, those are two definitions. Here are some mo

In general,

- A "conservative" wants the govt. to control individuals' behavior more than
organizations' behavior.

- A "liberal" wants the govt. to control organizations' behavior more than
individuals' behavior.

Of course there are exceptions (like gun control).

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

First off, there's bound to be disagreement about what constitutes a
"rational relationship"

Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,
what do we use?

If we use power (as Hans suggests), there's little incentive for QRP and
low power folks to upgrade.

The irony, however, is that I would bet most people that
are dedicated QRPers are much more tehnically oriented
to begin with and more likly to upgrade.

Agreed!

And you can bet that most dedicated QRPers are also primarily CW ops.

On the other hand,
IF a QRPer is content with the entry level power limits
and doesn't choose to upgrade, what's the harm?

Depends on the observer, really.


One can
look at all those that don't upgrade today...even with
spectrum privileges as the enhancement...to see folks that
are content at their current license level and are also good
hams.

Yet there are those who claim that large numbers of "technically
oriented" hams *would* upgrade except for the "barrier" of the
code test......

And since we're supposed to use the minimum power
required by the situation anyway.....

True, but the FCC has never made a big case of checking to
see that everyone is running at the least practical power.
Additionally, I suspect the FCC concern on the "least power"
is driven more by those running "big" power rather than
anyone run a basic rig of 100 watts or less.

Exactly. Also there's the interference considerations.

If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive?

I don't see modes as an incentive.

Then there's not much left.

There's also the question of enforcement. You can tell right away if
someone is outside their allocated spectrum, but power is another issue.

Yet it has been an aspect of Novice license for over 50 years.
I agree the enforcement would have its problems, but I suspect
the gross violations could be detected (e.g. if limit is 200 watts
and someone is running a kilowatt).

Depends on the antenna and conditions. On HF I have heard amazing
signals from QRP stations because of really good antennas. And
really poor signals from QRO stations because of poor antennas.

In the end, I believe "most"
hams want to operate legally and will do so.

That's because it's part of the tradition and culture of amateur
radio to do so, not because of large amounts of enforcement. I'm all
for more and better enforcement, but it's clear that those who think
Riley can do it all are mistaken.

Those that might run
double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are
only fooling themselves.

Big difference between 400 vs. 200 hp under the hood, or between 80
MPH and 40 MPH on the highway. But it's only 3 dB on the air. Tough
concept for some...

What is the technical competency difference between an Extra
operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General
operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz?

Not much!

Not any as I see it.

Exactly.The difference is in operating skills and knowledge.
The Extra part is where the DX often goes.

Maybe we could tie some power limits to frequency
spectrum which would then create a valid reason to not allow
a lower level licesnse in that spectrum slot.

I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you mean having some parts of a
band allowed 1500 W and others only, say, 150 W, as is done now in the
Novice parts of 80/40/15?

But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional
technical knowledge with more privileges.

I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation.

We can agree to disagree about the logic.

But what should be used for an incentive besides spectrum?

I agree with Hans that power certanly can be and has been.

That's one possiblity.

Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian
entry level license been going which restricts those hams to
commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA
license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs
"OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been
checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham.

I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how
I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical
inconsistencies in the written testing....

The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts
off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to
exist
in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97
thing
and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not being
*allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is simply a bad
idea. It would
*encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers
rather
than their own ingenuity.

Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been
in
taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio
station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that
sort
of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE
degrees, a
career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd
had
to use only "approved" gear.
and

Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would
foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO).

Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham
slows
down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble.
Add
to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means
adequate
to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order
to
sign off on another's work.

And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve?
Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams'
creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't
think so.

This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about
amateur
radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra
has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.

The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting
additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the
additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g.
Extra vs General, General vs Tech.

It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.

It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doesn't flow or relate
at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license.

Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation.

Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed
any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test...
no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code
to operate the Novice segments.

Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech,
and was tested for in the Novice when it was available.

Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill?
For that matter, what about the General?

Did I even hint at that.

Not at all!

The answer is basically no...although
I have NO preference for or against changing license structure
to a more rational basis for added privileges.

My point is simply that being anticodetest does *not* necessarily mean
someone
wants to water dwon the writtens or eliminate license classes.

THANK YOU Jim!

You're welcome.

I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to
understand that.

But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks
who
want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the
"21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it
projects.
One of its rallying cries is that we need more new hams at any cost,
and not only is the code test scapegoated as a barrier, but also the
written test. That paper came from a NCVEC committee, too, and you can
bet they will push that agenda.

A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never
imagined that cb would get out of their control...

In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming.

Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what
happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset,
even though all of the indications were there.

The big mistake,
in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the
basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via Radio
Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially
once they became all solid state.

All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC! The whole
reason
that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the
air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal,
short-range communications. Particularly mobile.

And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL.

The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible
bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for
ham radio.
They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of
balancing
all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and
under
various forms of pressure.

So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license. If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Just like you should! I'm amazed by the number of hams that seem to
thing that the ARRL has to agree with all their personal opinions. I
wonder how many of those type are married! 8^)



I wouldn't say they should have to agree 100% but logic would dictate that
at least about 1/2 of all or so should be in agreement.


I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.


Prove it. Prove it without circumstantial or coincidental evidence.

Well, the first thing would be getting back on the air after WW1. Some
might disagree on the particulars, but ARRL had a big part in it. I read
that in "200 Meters and Down".

But remember I said I wonder. Wasn't really claiming anything. 8^)

Ryan KC8PMX

--
"The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any
more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but
to make him a priest."

I love the quotes, Ryan!!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote


Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?



It's a learners permit, NOT a license. If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

I might just buy that if it was something like 2 years.


73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

Sure enough!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Bert Craig" wrote in message
v.net...


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


"JEP" wrote in message
gle.com...
SNIP


YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe

it


is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA.

However,


there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with

some

pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."


Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?


Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is
no reason for states to test on manual gearbox
autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those
that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing
intervention needed from the state.

My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also
doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the
test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things
a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent
of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up.

Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
v.net...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive

toward

higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?


The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.


So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?
The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with
CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I
think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be
allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it.
2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as

if

it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the

requirements

we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!


So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

one of two answers:

1. It's a goofed up rule

2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code.

Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning
on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all,
and there are plenty of goofed up rules.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also
doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the
test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things
a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent
of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up.

Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


In Michigan, you will fail your driving exam if you can't parallel park and
do a 3 point turn. They are mandatory test elements. You can fail one but
not both.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license. If they couldn't/didn't learn
enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is
a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then they
really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If
they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a
license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether or
not it is renewable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote


If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then
they
really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If
they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a
license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether
or
not it is renewable.


It is if I say it is and if I can convince the FCC that it is.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?

Oh, I don't know, Bill…let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just
passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a
nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few
hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the
one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater…right
through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it
on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna…that ought to be good
enough, right?

After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of
having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he
plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to
remove said offensive task…would certainly be concerned and cognizant
of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass
that 35 multiple-guess…er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him
"ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not
CW. ;-)

The analogy is a joke.

Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.)
HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the
above scenario may be playing out as you read these words…and that's
no joke.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call
them…"slackers.")

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Bill Sohl wrote:
My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also
doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the
test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things
a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent
of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up.

Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


In Michigan, you will fail your driving exam if you can't parallel park and
do a 3 point turn. They are mandatory test elements. You can fail one but
not both.

Okay, make up a petition to put before the FCC that all HF-privileged
radio amateurs demonstrate proficiency with a manual gearbox.

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Still on that standard excuse, ey?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...back BEFORE restructuring there were about 200
thousand NO-CODE Technician licenses granted. That was separate
from the "Technician-Plus" class then.

You haven't admitted that so many NO-CODE licensees got their
license grants in the first 9 years of that class.

You keep waltzing around that, misdirecting into other rationalizations
such as "they won't renew" or other statements of invalidity.

The Novice class was dropping in numbers before restructuring and
it continues dropping. The League of Misinformed Gentlemen finally
acquiesced and stated that the Tech license is the "entry level"
class for US ham radio.

Now you keep making the pitiful case of "Tech-plus renewals get
made Technicians and thus 'distort' the no-code numbers" and
conveniently forget the numbers prior to restructuring.

I guess mighty macho morsemen are into Convenience Amnesia.

LHA

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

Well, if one is only second-best, then you have to try harder!

[hardly anyone talks about those who finish in second place...]

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?

I can drive you to distraction if you like... :-)

LHA

In article , N8KDV
writes:

I misplaced my can of 'Thread Be Gone', does someone know where I can get a
replacement?

You can't get any unless you pass a federal morse test.

It's the law.

Of this jungle...

LHA

In article ,
(JEP) writes:

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it
is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However,
there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for
Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked.

73 es HNY de Bert
WA2SI

Yep, the dumbing down of America. The masses can't pass the test so we
will make the test easier. Notice how they skirt the issue of having
passed any test in front of a FCC examiner.

No problem, olde tymer. I passed my First Phone test the first time
in March, 1956, in the FCC's Chicago field office. Much later I went
to the Long Beach, CA, field office to complete paperwork on a
(now) PLMRS license. Real, live FCC employees, leased FCC
office space!

The VEC program is another
farce. Why not put the little piece of paper in a corn flakes box. At
least you would have breakfast.

Make it MREs, mighty macho morseman. Update. Ham radio is
a SERVICE!

Hup, too, tree, foah...march, march, march...

LHA