"Brian" wrote i


Is that documentable? Letters and pictures with circles and arrows?

Build yourself a time machine and go back 40 years and look.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"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.

Excellent point, Dee!

What's the point? Would anyone expect that the creation
of NCI (or just about any other organization) doesn't start
on the initiative of a small group that founded the organization?

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.

Very true - but how much "hard work" was really required?

Depends on how you measure it. I know I made a trip
to the FCC with Carl to make a direct presentation on an
"exparte" basis. There was lots of other stuff done by
different folks (web site creation, process membership donations,
etc.)

- They set up a website and a board
- They made a proposal to FCC and two directors went to Washington (on
their
own nickel, BTW) for an ex parte (3 hour drive at most)

3 hour drive...more like 4-5 hours one way.

- They petitioned FCC after the treaty changed

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.

How much did that really take?

Do you want some sort of accounting :-) :-)

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.

And if the governing bodies are already headed in that direction to begin
with.
We've had a nocodetest amateur license here in the USA since 1991 - that's
more
than 5 years before NCI was started.

No argument there and we'll never know the weight of NCI's
role in the 98-143 decisions...but who cares anyway? NCI
did what we did to further the end result. If anyone knew the
result beforehand, let them speak now. failing that, NCI wasn't
about to trust to chance not doing what we did. If, in the end,
it really wasn't necessary, then we don't care. We did what we
believed was necessary to further our cause.

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

Agreed!

Thanks...and I do think a number of folks in this newsgroup
did not expect anything of significance to come from those of us
that formed NCI in the beginning. Those same people (IMHO)
thought NCI just was a group of people posting in this
newsgroup...they never expected the core of NCI had life
experience in FCC dealings, organization skills, web skills,
legal document writing, etc.

To NCI's credit, NCI commentary was quoted several times
in the FCC R&O on 98-143 to bolster FCC conclusions.
That's a significant accomplishment (IMHO).

Anyway, it has been a relatively good year...even of the FCC
is dragging their feet on droppng code in the USA :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(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"?

Yes, I did. Sorry, but you weren't on my mailing list. You're
welcome to go over my head and directly petition your government
instead of me having to filter out your desires.

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

No.

Since you received your Extra under the inventive licensing scheme,
you should develop a new receiving circuit and make it available to
the rest of us unworthy slobs via the pages of QST. See if Far
Circuits can make the boards.

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"?

Exactly. Nothing needs to be done. They said there was no mandate.

The the FCC issued an NPRM to which the ARRL had to finally respond.

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.

So folks have no leadership ability; others do.

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


And I've supported NCI in principle and financially. Unfortunately, I
don't have the capacity to counter every troll post by made by the
PCTA. Forgive me.

So in the end, the minority has greatly influenced the silent majority
within the ARS, and serious discussion is being given to a full access
codeless license.

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"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.

Excellent point, Dee!

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.

Very true - but how much "hard work" was really required?

- They set up a website and a board
- They made a proposal to FCC and two directors went to Washington (on their
own nickel, BTW) for an ex parte (3 hour drive at most)

- They petitioned FCC after the treaty changed

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.

How much did that really take?

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.

And if the governing bodies are already headed in that direction to begin with.
We've had a nocodetest amateur license here in the USA since 1991 - that's more
than 5 years before NCI was started.

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

Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY

If NCI were really such an ineffective, do-nothing organization, how
do you explain the groundswell of support for full access to HF w/o a
Morse Code exam?

Perhaps it was just an idea whose time had come?

Which say a lot about the real need for the retention of the code
exam, and all the warfare you've taken part in.

"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"Brian" wrote i


Is that documentable? Letters and pictures with circles and arrows?

Build yourself a time machine and go back 40 years and look.

Hansel, if you don't have the proper documentation then it doesn't count.

"Brian" wrote

Hansel, if you don't have the proper documentation then it doesn't count.

Brian, you have me confused with someone who gives a **** how you feel about
documentation. In other words, you don't count.

Kill-file=ON. Plonk.

With warmest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Brian" wrote i


Is that documentable? Letters and pictures with circles and arrows?

Build yourself a time machine and go back 40 years and look.

Hansel, if you don't have the proper documentation then it doesn't count.

You mean like your alleged /T5 operation?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:32:56 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Less road maintenance and construction? For sure. I haven't driven
anywhere in Texas since 1979 without some kind of road maintenance or
construction going on, literally. Don't need it.

You must have a wonderful car/truck that fills in the potholes just
ahead of your driving over them.

I couldn't be objective with the police and fire protection. I don't live
in an area where I either need a lot of that or see any benefit of it.

Wait 'till your building catches on fire or you need paramedic
service after a fall. Been there, glad that it was available.
Since then I've been one of the biggest boosters for the local fire
department when budget time comes up.

Education. Well, let's see. Up north when my kids went to school in the
public school system, I cannot remember ever having to buy their school
supplies when they were in elementary school.

One of the fun times as a kid was when Mom took us to the local
stationery store for our school supplies at the beginning of the
school year - pencils, crayons, a new ruler, notebooks and pads,
book covers, erasers, all sorts of stuff.

Down here, I pay school taxes
PLUS had to spend about $200.00 per kid each year of school up to about 7th
grade, for their school supplies.

What do you have to buy for that price? If it includes books I can
agree. They should be supplied at no cost to the student..

Social Security, in my opinon, is a farce. Do away with it.

I and a lot of others here and elsewhere receive SocSec retirement
benefits. Fix it, don't wreck it any further.

Medicare and Medicaid I am happy to provide for my elderly community.
However, again fat trimming probably would save lots of money.

The recent "improvement" in Medicare was a big step backwards. I
get Medicare as well as private health insurance benefits and I pay
handsomely for both. The only difference with Medicare included is
that I don't have to pay a co-pay for office visits and for that
privilege I pay a lot more in "Medicare monthly payments". Who
ever said that Medicare is free?

Not only no, but hell no. I'd rather see people get ****ed off enough at
the ridiculous spending that goes on with our tax dollars. Trim all the
ridiculous spending, and some of the cuts I am talking about would hardly be
noticed.

Yeah, that's it. Don't pay a pension to those retired employees who
invested their after-tax income in government pension plans while
they worked their a**es off for diminished salaries because they
believed in using their skills for the benefit of the citizenry.
Especially my late father-in-law who was a civilian USAF engine
mechanic who got forgotten in an engine housing and spent almost 15
minutes baking in 110 degree heat in the desert...

Why am I wasting my time debating this ??

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) One thing that the NCI has quite
convincingly demonstrated is that HARD
WORK is what is required to achieve a
goal. (snip) 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. (snip) It
shows that the minority can prevail if they
have the commitment.



I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the
late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond
urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible
government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few
members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant
contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a
lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater
number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing
wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there
had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those
arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate.

I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a
late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership
in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl
supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other
members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out
to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that
plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -