"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

Brian wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.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.

BEER goes with popcorn! Especially a nice IPA.

Which reminds me, if there is a rrap get together at Dayton, maybe we
can trade off some homebrews.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Brian" wrote

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?

Don't flatter yourself, Brian. I've been discussing that notion since the
mid 1960's when the FCC and ARRL were busy dreaming up their dis-incentive
licensing fiasco.

Sunuvagun, isn't it a shame I've spoiled another of your organ-grinder dance
tunes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Just a quick reply:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much
taxation as there is.

Nobody is - that's the easy part.

What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation?
Less
road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How
about
cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security?
Medicare/Medicaid?


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. It's still going to be
congested, there's still going to be accidents, etc. The *only* thing I'd
like to see on the roads here is higher stripes or city titties (as they're
called). When it rains here, can't see the lane markings.

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. BUT,
I bet the fat could be trimmed from the departments of both entities and we
could save some money.

Military budget. Again, how much fat and ridiculous spending is there? I
suspect a lot.

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. 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. Go figure. And, again, enough fat
trimming and I bet the taxes wouldn't have had to be as high as they are.

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

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


Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and
Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total
is
almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't
we
just have it?" (I am not making this up).


Don't know why my post reminds you of that. I'd more be saying, "why do we
need the pretty building, the pretty concrete stars on all the bridge
columns, the pretty landscaping along the new highway, the pretty building
with all the way overboard amenities for the high-salaried and
not-so-worth-their-salary mucky mucks in offices that are plush and grand,
etc., blah, blah, blah.

Yep, "why do we need it?"


And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay
taxes

Why not?

Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and
investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl
exemption just for being over 65.

Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area
and
pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket.


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.


and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes
should be increased during the years of some
hereto-undertemined-age-limit
based timeframe. YMMV

So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for
their
mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden?


Did I ask them to "struggle to raise and educate" children? Do I get to
have a say in how many kids they have and how lavishly they raise them?

Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still
benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole.

Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school
system
that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to
private
school, a public school system existed for them.

If they did not
pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school
taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.

Exactly!

Uh huh. And it's a pipe dream to think that having less school tax would
convert to a higher percentage of dropouts.


Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't
going
to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by
having
kids, then they get the break, too.

If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many?


So many? How many is so many?


And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive
power
in the future.


And, I am supposed to care about someone else's kid's productive power? Is
that going to lessen *my* tax burden down the road? Am I going to be able
to "get back" from whatever it is they shall be producing? Hardly.


Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the
form
of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks.


Uh, well, yeah. I am closer to being a Sr Citizen than I am of having kids
and raising them again.


After all...it'd probably come up a
wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income
for
not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids.

More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids.


I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on
local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal
income tax deductions).

You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education
avaialble
to them when they were growing up.


Sounds like a viscious circle.



Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that
is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which
ultimately,
I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).


They keep changing the rules on that you know.



Yeah, but this is a democracy

No, it's a constitutional republic.

--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right,
eh?).

Sure we do. Unless you don't vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And, many don't. Which is why my tax dollars--hard earned by me--will
continue to be frivolously spent on useless crap; more for the benefit of
"showing off" than for anything truly worthwhile to the public.

Kim W5TIT

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

"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/


Hey, no way. Well, OK, way. BUT, I'll pop it and eat it for you. You need
to keep busy! LOL

Kim W5TIT

Mike Coslo wrote in message . ..
Brian wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.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.

BEER goes with popcorn! Especially a nice IPA.

Which reminds me, if there is a rrap get together at Dayton, maybe we
can trade off some homebrews.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Sounds great. I've been focusing on winemaking lately, so I'll have
to bring some of each.

bb

"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. Lots of people
support continued testing, which is a point that is completely lost on you.

Not at all. I'm sure FISTS would be happy to set up mock Morse Code
exams all of=ver the country to satisfy your needs.

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.

So you also think LHA should have wider bonding straps attached to
additional grounding rods?

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

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?

Don't flatter yourself, Brian. I've been discussing that notion since the
mid 1960's when the FCC and ARRL were busy dreaming up their dis-incentive
licensing fiasco.

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You haven't seen the worst of his diatribes.
There is no one else in this news group that
I have kill filed. (snip)


Oh, yes I have. You forget that I've been fairly active in this newsgroup
for a number of years (five, six, maybe more). Len and I have even been on
opposite sides of a few "discussions" before. His antics are legendary, but
there is humor to it all if you look for it.


there is method to the madness if you look for it.


For example, you and I do not agree on a
number of issues but I would not consider
putting you in the kill file. (snip)


Well, thats' nice to know. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"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

"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.

"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 -

"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

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