RadioBanter - Why You Don't Like The ARRL

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Why You Don't Like The ARRL (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27149-why-you-dont-like-arrl.html)

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

No, you're not. You said I was one lone voice in the maelstrom.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"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.

Ha!!! Yep, and the hilarious thing is that it is only recent that I-20
(don't know about I-10, near Houston, right?) is getting any attention.
Point being: the roads that need the fixin' the most haven't gotten it, and
the roads that are half-way decent are that way because "they" won't leave
'em alone!

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/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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.

Your earlier comments:

"Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth,
international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a
few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something
to say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational..."

Please point out the portion in which you state that you're discussing
government policy on child birth, NASA, etc.

(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?

Not at all. Opinions become suggestions all the time. Are you familiar
with Len's lengthy submission to the FCC regarding the morse test?
Would you believe his words could be construed as being suggestions to
the FCC? Would they be considered as Len's opinions?

(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.

My comments had nothing to do with vanity.

(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."

That's what you wrote, alright. I pointed out that morse use is not
declining in amateur radio. Amateur radio is certainly part of 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 needs of other radio services? What need has any other service to
tell hams which modes to use? How would a great number of hams using
morse be less worthy of the "massive" frequencies we have for our use?

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"...

Simple statement of fact. No new system has been developed. Yet
thousands of radio amateurs use morse daily.

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."

Yup. Five words per minute isn't exactly emphasis on morse, is it?
Technically inclined people didn't let a morse test stop them in the
past and don't seem to let it stop them now. Much of the youth seems
busy downloading MP3 files and playing computer games.

In
my opinion, the exact same argument could be made for eliminating telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement.

Maybe it could--if you believe that 5 wpm constitutes "emphasis".

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

...Your beligerance keeps on.

Yup, beligerance with flags...

You are beligerant and ****ed off...

Once could be a typo. Three would be one of your "Atila" gaffes.
"Belligerent", Len. I thought you were a professional writer.

Dave K8MN

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Bottom line, without names, the statement is grossly misleading
as you apear to try and broaden your claim to NCI in general...
which is absolutely false.

2. What is "the coming vacuum"?

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

I did, someone else called it a gap???

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Your earlier comments:

"Dave, I don't have a background in a lot
of things (child birth, international affairs
with Belarus, NASA space missions, to
name just a few), but expect to have a
voice in those things when I have
something to say and would be darn
offended, and very confrontational..."

Please point out the portion in which you
state that you're discussing government
policy on child birth, NASA, etc.

Yes, those are my earlier comments - which you've disingenuously taken out
of context. That paragraph was a reply to words you wrote about code
testing - a government policy. The message that paragraph appeared in was
about code testing - a government policy. The discussion that message
appeared in was about code testing - a government policy. Please show me
where, in all that, there was even a hint that we were not talking about
government policy.

The needs of other radio services? What need
has any other service to tell hams which modes
to use? How would a great number of hams using
morse be less worthy of the "massive" frequencies
we have for our use?

This is not, and has never been, about the "use" of code, Dave. This
discussion is about a testing requirement. And, from that perspective, I've
already addressed other radio services in my last message. But, since you
seem to have missed it (or decided to chop it up rather than look at it as a
whole), I'll repeat it here...

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."

Simple statement of fact. No new system has
been developed. Yet thousands of radio amateurs
use morse daily.

Again, this is not about the "use" of code, Dave. Those same radio
amateurs, and any others who want to join them, can and will continue to
freely "use" code long after any testing requirement is gone.

Maybe it could--if you believe that 5 wpm
constitutes "emphasis".

It is "emphasis" compared to the other operating modes, and compared to
where this country needs expertise (see FCC statements above).

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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.

I don't think so, Mike. While I do see comments here and there, I don't
see a growing consensus for a need to change the written tests, much less a
growing consensus on any specific change to those tests. I suspect the vast
majority would agree those tests are needed and are just fine as they are.
Instead, I hope we can finally focus on more fully using the frequencies we
have. Of course, I don't see any growing consensus for that either, but one
can hope.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Ha!!! Yep, and the hilarious thing is that
it is only recent that I-20 (don't know
about I-10, near Houston, right?) is getting
any attention. Point being: the roads that
need the fixin' the most haven't gotten it,
and the roads that are half-way decent
are that way because "they" won't leave
'em alone!

While the Houston area was bad, driving on I-20 around El Paso was a
nightmare. The highway has a washboard effect which feels like it's shaking
your vehicle, and you, apart. You honestly have to clench your teeth to keep
them from clattering. And, after about twenty miles of that, I had to stop
because my hands were getting numb from the shaking steering wheel.

I mentioned I-5 in Norther California before. On sections of that highway,
the road has cracked and been pushed up from the changing weather (extreme
heat in summer and snows in winter). As a result, there are six to twelve
inch humps in the road about every ten to fifty feet. And, if you drive the
speed limit, you can feel your tires leave the road and slam back down on
the opposite side of each hump. Even if you slow down, you're still tossed
around in the vehicle on the larger humps. Anyway, since I was pulling a
fairly heavy trailer through that section of highway, the experience was not
at all pleasant.

Those two sections of highways stand out in my mind from the last trip.
The other thing that stood out was the traffic congestion near each major
city. LA traffic has been a nightmare for many years and it seems to be
getting worse. Houston has major traffic and darn poor road signs. Each time
we drive across country, the traffic always feels like it is getting worse.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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