"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
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.


The "road maintenance and construction" I am speaking of is the constant
construction/reconstruction (to include redirecting even) of lanes on
highways. What you are speaking of *is* the kind of maintenance that is
needed; therefore *not* included in my "trimming the fat" concept of
reducing-costs-therefore-taxes.


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.


Again, you're speaking of needed services. I am talking about trimming the
fat. For instance, why on God's green earth does it ever, ever take 4-5 cop
cars to handle a traffic call? Now, before the zealots go nuts--yes, I know
there are times when that call may become dangerous for an officer--so I can
see two cars, maybe, and not every time.


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..


Thank goodness I don't pay it any more--but my kids' school supplies ended
up at just near $200.00 a kid by the time they got to around 4th grade.
Kleenex, glitter, scissors, glue, ruler, pencil box, colored map pencils,
pencils, construction paper, on and on and on. AND specific brands, even.


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.


Uh huh. Well your resentment is forgetting that I, too, will *maybe* be a
benefactor of the system someday. But, again, a much better system could be
had and I think it would be better run by *us*, meaning either a system
wherein we determine our own investment, or it is "governed" but not held by
the government.


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?


Again, something governed but not held or kept or run by the government
would be much better.


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.


Pension? So, you consider SS as a pension--something, I might add, for
which it was *never* intended? I said nothing about people retirements and
pensions and don't be so willing to let your indignance misdirect what
someone said. I *do* include companies trimming the superfluous crap from
their budgets, to where maybe pensions and retirements would reflect *more*
what you deserve and what your hard ass work was for. By the way, I do
*not* work for the benefit of "the" citizenry...hardly. I work for *me* and
*mine.* The benefit is that, through that, it works for 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



More importantly, why did you bring such an emotional topic up in a debate?
To influence or shut down response? Sorry about your late father-in-law,
but you could have left that to yourself and continued on with effective
(well, at least as effective as it could get here) debate. But...were you
blaming *me* for what happened? Because of how I believe? I mean, c'mon
Phil, that came from nowhere.

Oh well...go ahead, attack now.

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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^)


Agreed. By the time NCI joined the debate, the debate was pretty much
resolved. So, instead of linking themselves to this one issue, they may have
better served the Ham community by focusing more on what follows. But, I
don't think there is any consensus on what might follow. Since most are
satisfied with everything else, I suspect the code test debate may be the
last big debate in the Ham community. Of course, they'll always be small
debates, but not nearly as widespead or as all consuming as this one.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"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

Hansel, there appears to be some confusion, but its on your part.
This group will beat up on you pretty badly if you don't have the
documentation. Verbal agreements with someone 40 years ago don't
count. I didn't make the rule.

"Phil Kane" wrote:
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.


Exactly. I've driven through Texas recently (I-10 and I-20) and they do
need road maintenance. On several sections of those highways, it may be
smoother to just drive through the desert on the sand. The last time I drove
through Northern California (several years ago), I-5 had similar problems.
On some sections of I-5, I had to slow down to 35 mph to avoid being
literally bounced around inside the vehicle. By comparison, Alabama recently
repaved their major roads and was a pleasure to drive through.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
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^)

Two questions...
1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other
than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen?

2. What is "the coming vacuum"?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Sounds like one of Len's typical conspiracy/dishonesty rants aimed
toward the ARRL.

Quit trying to sound like a Ba'athist amateur, Klunk.

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

Quit avoiding making direct answers to direct questions, Your
Scumminess.

The League (of Notions) MAKES MONEY on the publication side
of their conglomerate of control.

"Conglomerate of control"...?!?! The ARRL is the ONLY
Amateur Radio publisher out tehre, Lennie?

Ads in QST pay for everything in the QST staff and the cost of job
printing and fulfillment (publication talk for mailing/distributing).

Speaking of "fulfillment", I imagine that's what the ARRL staff,
(Ed hare, et al) have once every two weeks, Lennie.

Sure is nice that THIER magazine is still in business, isn't
it...?!?!

The "non-profit" stuff and nonsense is for lowering their taxes.

It works. It could work for you too, if you cared to try.

I interviewed for a League position years back. The
salary offered wasn't enough to cover a move and life in the greater
Hartford area.

Translation: You were rejected. (boo hoo for you)

Facts to the contrary exist. The League has solicited for other
positions int eh past, and Dave's assessment of the League's salary
offerings are on-the-mark.

That's on the web too, Lennie. (Facts suck when they screw up
your rants, huh, Lennie...?!?!)

While I'm sure that salaries are now better, I don't
think any League staffers are putting up gold-plated Rohn tower and 80m
yagis at their palatial estates.

Rohn filed for bankruptcy on account of that?

You can see the top five staffers' salaries given on their 2002 IRS
forms.

We can see yours too. Your point?

It's about your ignorance of what a non-profit really is.

*Guffaw!*. Her ignorance? I see some gaping holes in your own
database.

Nooo, Klunk, "non-profit" is a status to claim for paying LESS
taxes.

"Non-profit" is more than a tax shelter.

The nature of the ARRL still supports and substantiates thier
non-profit status.

Sorry you don't care for it.

If you are foolish enough to believe that W1AW's station, the
"museum" and all the other paraphenalia came out of dues, you've
got a database gap large enough to sail the USS Enterprise through.

And you have, of course, "facts" that delineate what dollars came
from which accounts to cover all these projects, Lennie?

With all the dissatisfaction you've expressed, why not start your own
organization for like-minded hams? I'm sure you'd amass a following in
no time.

Three-fourths of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs are NOT members.

Eight tenths of all Americans are not card-carrying members of
the political parties they usually "support", either, but they do.

Your point?

That should be evidenciary. To all but the minority who are members.

Again...so what?

Members "KNOW what is good for all the others" and therefore they
are the elite.

Obviously not enough of the "majority" feel compelled to
"overthrow" the ARRL over it's policies or practicies, Your
Scumminess.

Even more evident, then, is that the "minority" you refer to MUST
be fairly representing the "non-members" since there is no organized
alternative to the ARRL.

The League (of Notions) still holds on vainly to the idea that morse
code is still the ultimate of amateur skills...long after the rest of the
radio world has given it up, discarded it for communications.

Why do you persist in publically misrepresenting the truth, Sir
Anderscum?

Continue to be the acidic spam-bot for the League (of Notions), old
Klunk. You have taken a Ba'ath...but are yet unclean.

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

Obviously not.

Steve, K4YZ

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:42:10 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Oh well...go ahead, attack now.

I'm not going to waste my time.

Have a happy holiday.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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^)



Agreed. By the time NCI joined the debate, the debate was pretty much
resolved. So, instead of linking themselves to this one issue, they may have
better served the Ham community by focusing more on what follows. But, I
don't think there is any consensus on what might follow. Since most are
satisfied with everything else, I suspect the code test debate may be the
last big debate in the Ham community. Of course, they'll always be small
debates, but not nearly as widespead or as all consuming as this one.


Probably so. I would venture that the immediate future debates will be
one last donnybrook over the Morse code testing, and after that is over,
remnants of the testing debate will go on a little while. The final
episodes of this will be when old pro-coders kvetch in similar style as
we occasionally hear from someone that is still incensed over incentive
licensing.

My guess on the debate of the future is one of testing regimen. I
predict that a new movement will arise that views testing per se as an
unnecessary nuisance, and will agitate for simplification of the test,
and eventually it's removal.

Variations on this theme include reducing the qualification process to
signing an affidavit that you have read a book or booklet on the ARS, or
perhaps granting a license after attending an informative seminar.

In the variations, my guess is that most people would prefer to sign an
affidavit, because the seminar might take up a big part of their day,
while the affidavit only takes as long as writing their signature.

The affidavit route has already been proposed, (NCVEC/W5YI paper) while
the seminar was something I just thought of recently.

Of course, the entire new regimen would only work efficiently if there
were only one license class, which would be another debate topic.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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^)


Two questions...
1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other
than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen?

They don't have to be Board members, Bill. And I don't have their names
off the top of my head.

If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute
"member" or "prominent member". Although I think that's almost like
saying a person's argument is invalid because they made a typo.



2. What is "the coming vacuum"?

Didn't you ask this question in another post? See that one! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute
"member" or "prominent member".


I'm a member (you'll have to ask K0CKB if my member is considered
"prominent" (sic)).

I support more rigorous technical exams for full privileges, to which you
have expressed some rather strenuous opposition.

Go figure!

3333333,

de Hans, K0HB