Steveo wrote:
wrote:
No No Not George wrote:
met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks.

Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky.
http://www.steve-park.com/

Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good!

No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up
freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where
I live.

No problems here.

Take off an 's', and your driver sucks. But hey, I'm just sayin.

--
___________________________
Truckers get the best $20 whores

wrote:
No No Not George wrote:
met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks.

Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky.
http://www.steve-park.com/

Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good!

No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up
freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where
I live.

No problems here.

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.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. ;-)

Of course...a no-coder is lazy, slothful, ignorant, has no common
sense let alone intelligence.

On the other hand, coders are superior in all ways, not just in radio.

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.

I sense a lot of bigotry and intolerance in what you've tried to write.

If you want to proclaim yourself "superior," then I'd suggest you
halt the coders-are-the-top-of-the-food-chain attitude.

There is NO evidence that morsemanship ever imbued another
with intelligence, common sense, or any other qualities other than
to send on-off keying on an acceptible level.

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.")

Total bigotry and intolerance...plus the arrogance of "I had to do it so
all you others damn well have to do it."

That's very tiresome as well as totally invalid.

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.

Of course there is...and you have dutifully reported that same
organization to the FCC, right?

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?!"

How did BPL suddenly become a part of NCI?

The FCC still has a NOI, a Notice of Inquiry, ABOUT BPL...it isn't
advocating it or "threatening" an NPRM.

There are over 5000 documents in the FCC ECFS database just on
03-104. I'd suggest you begin at the beginning and educate
yourself on what it is really about.

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.

You are free to make a petition to the FCC to put driving tests
into the amateur radio license exam if that is your fervent wish.

Ptui.

LHA

wrote:
Steveo wrote:
wrote:
No No Not George wrote:
met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks.

Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky.
http://www.steve-park.com/

Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good!

No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up
freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where
I live.

No problems here.

Take off an 's', and your driver sucks. But hey, I'm just sayin.

Oh believe me I've had all kinds of fun with this name. Funny
thing is, I've never been a fan of his even, before the crash
that rang his bell. I hope he files Workman's comp, and retires.

He scares me.

Steveo wrote:
He scares me.

He would only scare me if he started driving in NW Georgia.

--
___________________________
Truckers get the best $20 whores

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
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

Don't see where a morse test was ever required for a 1st phone. Did
you ever pass a ham exem at the FCC office? Just another wanna be?

JJ wrote in message ...
JEP wrote:
Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to
belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their
magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it
every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some
clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap.

Then go to your library and read it, assuming you know what a library is.

Kinda hard to sit on crapper looking at QST if it's at the library.

wrote:
Steveo wrote:
He scares me.

He would only scare me if he started driving in NW Georgia.

F#cker better not be driving nextel! (still ain't use to saying nextel)

Isn't cross posting great?

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote

Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical,
inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc.

I knew you'd agree with me.

How could it be otherwise?

You are the Chief of the Boat in this SSBN, olde-tymer. If anyone
disagrees with your plan you go ballistic.

LHA

In article ,
(JEP) writes:

Don't see where a morse test was ever required for a 1st phone.

Not only are you an anonymous bigot but you have reading
difficulty as well.

You asked only if anyone passed "a test" at an FCC office.

Did you ever pass a ham exem at the FCC office?

Never tried to, not even for an exam rather than an "exem."

Just another wanna be?

Hardly. I started as a hobbyist in electronics in 1947. After my
military service I made a career out of electronics engineering.
I'm still doing that even if I don't keep regular hours.

What is your excuse, anonymous one?

LHA