"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

But we're not talking about a woman with
several children or NASA engineers - this
is a discussion about government policy.

Why, Dwight! It was you who brought up
those very items. How can it be a dodge
when I respond to them? (snip)


As you know, they (child birth and NASA) were brought up in a discussion
about government policy. Your reply was a dodge because you tried to apply
those comments to something other than government policy rather than
addressing them in the context they were made.


(snip) What value would your suggestions on
child bearing policy or NASA policy have to
those making decisions? (snip)


We were talking about opinions, not suggestions. My opinions affect how I
vote, which effects who is elected, which effects where tax dollars are
spent, and so on. My opinions, voiced to others, may affect their opinions,
which effects who is elected, and so on. Is this process all that unfamiliar
to you?


(snip) Don't expect others to greet your views
with reverence if you have no background in the
matter under discussion. (snip)


Don't be so vain, Dave. You don't speak for "others" and I don't expect
anything from you.


(snip) The mistake is in the view that morse use
is declining in amateur radio. (snip)


I haven't said Morse use is declining in Amateur Radio. My exact words
were "...Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world."
Considering far fewer people in radio today are using code compared to just
few decades ago, that isn't exactly an astonishing revelation, is it?


(snip) It matters not that the morse isn't used much
by other radio services. (snip)


Oh, it most certainly does matter. As I've already stated, if we're going
to remain a valuable radio service, worthy of the massive frequencies we
hold and unlike personal radio services (CB), we must consider the needs of
the other radio services when discussing any licensing issue - including
code testing.

The FCC did exactly that in the Report & Order following the last round of
restructuring when they looked at personal communication services, satellite
communications, fiber optic communications, high definition television
systems, and police, fire, and rescue communications. In that Report &
Order, the FCC stated that "...no communication system has been designed in
many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive
messages in Morse code by ear" and that "...the emphasis on Morse code
proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and
purpose of the service." Finally, the FCC said, "...reducing the emphasis on
telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur
service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to
prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." In
my opinion, the exact same argument could be made for eliminating telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) Hang in there, though...this one could
get good! I am getting popcorn before I
download messages next time!


Pop me up some popcorn while you're at it. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Philosophically you are right Dwight.
However, Len has a long history of
diatribes and disjointed rambles that
do not hang together. He is simply
trying to agitate. I've kill filed his
various aliases because of it. (snip)


I can think of several others here who could easily fit into that
description, Dee. Len is indeed confrontational, but I've noticed the
biggest complainers seem to be those who disagree more with his opinions
then his demeaner - these same people seem to object far less when someone
with a similar demeanor posts opinions similar to their own.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


You haven't seen the worst of his diatribes. There is no one else in this
news group that I have kill filed. For example, you and I do not agree on a
number of issues but I would not consider putting you in the kill file.
Your writings are well constructed and generally stick to the point of the
particular discussion. Thus one can have a give and take discussion
presenting opinions and data to back those opinions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a
groundswell of support.

How do you know?

Have you made a scientific survey to determine this "groundswell"?

What constitutes "modernizing the ARS"? Shall we all go out and buy new
radios?

It doesn't need to be filtered through state
and regional directors, brought up in a board meeting, with lots of
hand-wringing that there is no clear mandate...

Then what needs to be done? What is the "mandate"?


Some folks make a big deal out of the fact that ARRL's membership is only
about
25% of US hams. These same folks ignore the fact that No-Code
International's
membership is less than 1% of US hams, despite the fact that such
membership
has no dues and no expiration or renewal requirements.



And let's keep in mind that NCI does have a structure with officers and a
board. The detailed policies and procedures were developed by those
officers and that board based on the organization's stated goal. Thus it
was "filtered" through a limited group.

One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK
is what is required to achieve a goal. Although I don't agree with their
goal, I must commend them for getting in there and doing the work required.
They did not sit on their hands and whine. They organized on a world wide
basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to
support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. It is
all the more convincing when one considers the low percentage of hams
belonging to NCI. It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the
commitment.

Personally I support code testing but NCI certainly did their homework to
achieve their goal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying change doesn't happen without
work. Since Brian chooses only to complain and not dig in and do the work,
then he can't expect change. Brian's approach of changing because Brian
wants the change is the dictatorial approach.

Dictator Dee doth protestith too much.

I think I've been persuasive in my arguments with respect to changes
within the ARS. We've even got Hans discussing one full license class
w/o a Morse Code exam requirement, and a learners permit. Gee, where
have we heard that before?

No Brian is welcome to his opinion. But if he isn't willing to do the work
to effect a change then he is being unrealistic in expecting that change to
come to pass. That is all. He wants things to change just by saying he
wants them to change. I am challenging that self-centered, simplistic, and
unrealistic expectation.

No, Dee. Your self-centered, complex, and unrealistic expectation
that I lead a coup at the ARRL so that I can then have the ARRL effect
changes at the FCC is just not going to happen.

Ever heard of working smarter, not harder?

Brian is willing to do the work, but not the work that you have
demanded of me. Trying to change the ARRL is not my goal. They can
bumble along for another century if they so choose. And changing FCC
rules is not within the ability of the ARRL anyway. So where do you
think I've put my efforts?

You can try to maintain the ARRL status quo by spam-botting RRAP at
every opportunity, and I think you've got your work cut out for you.

I'll keep changing the ARS one amateur radio operator at a time.

FWIW, it seems to be working.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license,
or
comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really
bother
you
that much if those comments agreed more with your own views.

I'll take that bet. I happen to agree 100% with LHA that Morse testing
is
no longer necessary in the amateur radio service.

Lots of people agree with that view, a point completely lost on Dee.

No that point is not lost on me. I'm well aware of it. Lots of people
support continued testing, which is a point that is completely lost on you.


Even so, I still think he
is an over-pompous posturing twit who could benefit from wider bonding
straps attached to several additional grounding rods.

Hans, remove those jack-boots immediately. Death by electric chair
for mere freedom of speech is unAmerican, even if you do agree with
him.


Well freedom of speech, while allowing verbal abuse, does not make such
verbal abuse as LHA likes to heap on those in this newsgroup acceptable.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean that it is reasonable to do
it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
(snip)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age
"everyone's opinion has value" when the
topic is something in which someone has
no background. (snip)


Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or
no
background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the
government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare,
social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely,
Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the
people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age"
thing.


But, Dwight....Dave's principles (if they could be called that) only apply
to others!! Not himself.

Hang in there, though...this one could get good! I am getting popcorn
before I download messages next time!

Kim W5TIT

Chardonnay goes nicely with popcorn.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying change doesn't happen without
work. Since Brian chooses only to complain and not dig in and do the
work,
then he can't expect change. Brian's approach of changing because Brian
wants the change is the dictatorial approach.

Dictator Dee doth protestith too much.

I think I've been persuasive in my arguments with respect to changes
within the ARS. We've even got Hans discussing one full license class
w/o a Morse Code exam requirement, and a learners permit. Gee, where
have we heard that before?

No Brian is welcome to his opinion. But if he isn't willing to do the
work
to effect a change then he is being unrealistic in expecting that change
to
come to pass. That is all. He wants things to change just by saying he
wants them to change. I am challenging that self-centered, simplistic,
and
unrealistic expectation.

No, Dee. Your self-centered, complex, and unrealistic expectation
that I lead a coup at the ARRL so that I can then have the ARRL effect
changes at the FCC is just not going to happen.

Ever heard of working smarter, not harder?

Brian is willing to do the work, but not the work that you have
demanded of me. Trying to change the ARRL is not my goal. They can
bumble along for another century if they so choose. And changing FCC
rules is not within the ability of the ARRL anyway. So where do you
think I've put my efforts?

You can try to maintain the ARRL status quo by spam-botting RRAP at
every opportunity, and I think you've got your work cut out for you.

I'll keep changing the ARS one amateur radio operator at a time.

FWIW, it seems to be working.

Sorry but haven't seen you change anyone here. From what I've seen, each
and every person here has there own opinion and continues to promote that
idea.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE