"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

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
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?

Which one?

Any and all of them

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/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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.

There was nothing disingenuous about anything and there was nothing in
your earlier statements to indicate that you were discussing government
policy. If I wanted to make it clear that I was speaking of policy, I
might have written something like, "I don't have a background in NASA
policy or child birth policy". Child birth policy doesn't seem to make
much sense does it?

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.

Show me that your words indicate in any way that you were discussing
child birth policy or NASA 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.

That isn't what your words say. Look at 'em and see if you can find any
words about morse *use*. If you can't find them, perhaps I can provide
a quote.

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).

I strongly disagree that a five word per minute morse test indicates
emphasis. Additionally, nothing precludes anyone from developing
expertise though "where this country needs expertise" hasn't been
defined. If you'd like to take the position that a five word per minute
code test is a huge hurdle for those who could develop some technical
expertise if they could only obtain HF amateur radio access, I'll play
along.

Dave K8MN

KØHB wrote:

"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)).

HA! Good one. No thanks, Hans. If Mrs Hans is happy, then I'm happy.
Thanks for the spelink crection.


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

Go figure!

I don't recall having a problem with the qualifications of your second
license. Did I say that?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

snippage

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.

Bottom line, I have never accused NCI of having any particular
opinion.

I wrote:

Instead, some members express "unofficial opinions that scare the
bejabbers out of me.

Back to now:

Who is broadening any claim? I even put unofficial opinions on my sentence.

Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership
rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if
the member outs him or her self.

I don't like Han's entry level license requirement either. He's a member.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

There are many and varied definitions of "consensus" among the
newsgroupies in here. In the main, they consider "consensus" as
being anything that they and their close acquaintences agree upon.

:-)

LHA

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

Don't need a consensus. Just somebody or somebodys with an agenda. Like NCVEC's
Gang of Four.

I suspect the vast
majority would agree those tests are needed and are just fine as they are.

Sure - just like the vast majority might say that a single 5 wpm code test is
needed and is just fine it is.

Instead, I hope we can finally focus on more fully using the frequencies we
have.

How?

What changes do you suggest to make that happen?

And what does "more fully" mean in that context?

Of course, I don't see any growing consensus for that either, but one
can hope.

Don't need a consensus...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership
rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if
the member outs him or her self.

"Closely guarded secret?!?" :-)

Good grief, NCI members in here have been free with publishing
their membership numbers. No one has been arrested for that
yet. :-)

So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members. :-)

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

Don't need a consensus. Just somebody or somebodys with an agenda. Like
NCVEC's Gang of Four.

Obviously a Gang of running-dog imperialists!


I suspect the vast
majority would agree those tests are needed and are just fine as they are.

Sure - just like the vast majority might say that a single 5 wpm code test is
needed and is just fine it is.

You think it and the "vast majority" agrees automatically.

Marvelous this god-hood thing...



Of course, I don't see any growing consensus for that either, but one
can hope.

Don't need a consensus...

None at all. Everyone do as you say, following the True Beliefs
of the Church of St. Hiram.

As long as everyone thinks like you do, all is serene, safe,
secure. No dissension, no arguments, all big happy family.

Morse code makes every ham happy.

Ohm mane padme ohm...

Let there be no resistance. Resistance is futile.

LHA

ubject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/20/03 2:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership
rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if
the member outs him or her self.

"Closely guarded secret?!?"

Good grief, NCI members in here have been free with publishing
their membership numbers. No one has been arrested for that
yet.

It's sad to have to point out the obvious, but a "membrship number" is not
the same as the number of members.

So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members.

Check their annual postal statement. It's a violation for them to purjure
that, and it delineates the number of "paid subscriptions" (ie: paid-up
members)

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/20/03 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
ubject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/20/03 2:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership
rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if
the member outs him or her self.

"Closely guarded secret?!?"

Good grief, NCI members in here have been free with publishing
their membership numbers. No one has been arrested for that
yet.

It's sad to have to point out the obvious, but a "membrship number" is
not
the same as the number of members.

So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members.

Check their annual postal statement. It's a violation for them to
purjure
that, and it delineates the number of "paid subscriptions" (ie: paid-up
members)

Steve, K4YZ


I was a member of the ARRL prior to earning my Novice ticket.

What was my call sign then?

I am sure there was a point ot your asking this question, Brain, even
though it was not part-and-parcel of the quoted item above.

Regardless of your licensure status when you joined the ARRL, the only
'relevence' would have been your voting staus. You were STILL a member.

Now...the point?

Steve, K4YZ

"Dave Heil" wrote:

There was nothing disingenuous about
anything and there was nothing in your
earlier statements to indicate that you
were discussing government policy. If
I wanted to make it clear that I was
speaking of policy, I might have written
something like, "I don't have a
background in NASA policy or child birth
policy". Child birth policy doesn't seem
to make much sense does it?


Your inability to comprehend seems to increase whenever your argument
grows weak, Dave. You stated that one must have experience to make an
informed decision - not knowledge, experience. I pointed to child birth, as
one example, to prove that wasn't true. But, since you can't seem to
understand that, I'll spell it out for you. One does not have to have a
child ("child birth") to make an informed decision about abortion laws
("government policy"). And, before you object to that, the act of abortion
is a medical procedure, but the laws governing abortion are government
policy.


That isn't what your words say. Look at 'em
and see if you can find any words about
morse *use*. If you can't find them, perhaps
I can provide a quote.


You were talking about an entirely different "use" than I was. You were
talking about Amateur radio operators "using" code while I was talking about
the "use" of Morse code by other radio services as that relates to code
testing. Apples and oranges, Dave. This discussion isn't about the "use" of
code by Amateur radio operators - ending code testing will not stop you from
using Morse code.


I strongly disagree that a five word per minute
morse test indicates emphasis. (snip)


Again, it is "emphasis" compared to the other operating modes, and
compared to where this country needs expertise (see FCC statements in
previous messages).


(snip) Additionally, nothing precludes anyone
from developing expertise though "where this
country needs expertise" hasn't been defined.
(snip)


Morse code certainly isn't "where this country needs expertise" today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

There was nothing disingenuous about
anything and there was nothing in your
earlier statements to indicate that you
were discussing government policy. If
I wanted to make it clear that I was
speaking of policy, I might have written
something like, "I don't have a
background in NASA policy or child birth
policy". Child birth policy doesn't seem
to make much sense does it?

Your inability to comprehend seems to increase whenever your argument
grows weak, Dave. You stated that one must have experience to make an
informed decision - not knowledge, experience. I pointed to child birth, as
one example, to prove that wasn't true. But, since you can't seem to
understand that, I'll spell it out for you. One does not have to have a
child ("child birth") to make an informed decision about abortion laws
("government policy"). And, before you object to that, the act of abortion
is a medical procedure, but the laws governing abortion are government
policy.

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness about driving but this one just
keeps getting skewed more and more. Now you're writing about abortion
instead of child birth and NASA. You did not write anything in your
original comments to indicate that you were discussing "child birth
policy" or "NASA policy".

That isn't what your words say. Look at 'em
and see if you can find any words about
morse *use*. If you can't find them, perhaps
I can provide a quote.

You were talking about an entirely different "use" than I was. You were
talking about Amateur radio operators "using" code while I was talking about
the "use" of Morse code by other radio services as that relates to code
testing. Apples and oranges, Dave.

A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying that.


This discussion isn't about the "use" of
code by Amateur radio operators - ending code testing will not stop you from
using Morse code.

Aren't you growing tired from all the tap dancing you've been doing?

I strongly disagree that a five word per minute
morse test indicates emphasis. (snip)

Again, it is "emphasis" compared to the other operating modes, and
compared to where this country needs expertise (see FCC statements in
previous messages).

Can you talk? Can you do "hunt and peck" keyboarding? That takes care
of voice and keyboard modes. Tell me more about the areas where this
country needs expertise.

(snip) Additionally, nothing precludes anyone
from developing expertise though "where this
country needs expertise" hasn't been defined.
(snip)

Morse code certainly isn't "where this country needs expertise" today.

I didn't write that it is. I pointed out that the 5 wpm test for HF
access doesn't preclude anyone from developing expertise in those murky
areas "where this country needs expertise".

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

Morse code skills are needed ONLY in amateur radio...according
to certain long-timers who have few other skills and ebody hatred
and bigotry against all on that one extremely important (to them)
skill in amateur radio.

If it is your purpose as a newsgroupie to spread malicious lies
about others, to challenge "motivations" of those not thinking as
your holiness does, then you are doing a fine job.

I am not "motivated" to love, honor, and cherish morse code as
the embodyment of expertise in radio of past times. Been in real
HF radio communications before most of these newsgroupies
were in existance...never used morse code, never had to...but
only as a professional, not as an amateur.

May the lump of coal in your stocking turn into a truckload of
dusty, high-sulphur-content carbon. Merry Christmas.

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been
speaking for you of late.

It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's
ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license".

Morse code skills are needed ONLY in amateur radio...

....then it is one of those things which shouldn't bother you in the
least.

according
to certain long-timers who have few other skills and ebody hatred
and bigotry against all on that one extremely important (to them)
skill in amateur radio.

I have lots of amateur radio skills, Len. Morse code proficiency is but
one of them. I use other modes and often QSO those amateurs who have no
HF access at all.

If it is your purpose as a newsgroupie to spread malicious lies
about others, to challenge "motivations" of those not thinking as
your holiness does, then you are doing a fine job.

Please tell us what you view as an example of a malicious lie which has
been spread about you, Leonard. It can't be about your lack of
motivation toward obtaining an amateur radio license. You've declared a
decades-long interest. You bragged that you'd get an "Extra right out
of the box". A code-free exam has been available for a number of years.
Straighten us out.

I am not "motivated" to love, honor, and cherish morse code as
the embodyment of expertise in radio of past times. Been in real
HF radio communications before most of these newsgroupies
were in existance...never used morse code, never had to...but
only as a professional, not as an amateur.

I've pointed out the availability of a code-free license which provides
access to the VHF/UHF frequencies which you say are the new frontier.
Your motivation hasn't extended to obtaining one of those. You have no
incentive for overcoming your inertia.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been
speaking for you of late.

We just happen to agree that the Morse Exam has to go and that the ARS
is divided between folks who can accept change, and those who cannot.

It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's
ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license".

I think working Frenchmen out of band otta be #2.

Morse code skills are needed ONLY in amateur radio...

...then it is one of those things which shouldn't bother you in the
least.

Bothers me.

according
to certain long-timers who have few other skills and ebody hatred
and bigotry against all on that one extremely important (to them)
skill in amateur radio.

I have lots of amateur radio skills, Len. Morse code proficiency is but
one of them. I use other modes and often QSO those amateurs who have no
HF access at all.

What? No Morse?

What? No HF?

Such as out of band Frenchmen on 6M?

If it is your purpose as a newsgroupie to spread malicious lies
about others, to challenge "motivations" of those not thinking as
your holiness does, then you are doing a fine job.

Please tell us what you view as an example of a malicious lie which has
been spread about you, Leonard. It can't be about your lack of
motivation toward obtaining an amateur radio license. You've declared a
decades-long interest. You bragged that you'd get an "Extra right out
of the box". A code-free exam has been available for a number of years.
Straighten us out.

I am not "motivated" to love, honor, and cherish morse code as
the embodyment of expertise in radio of past times. Been in real
HF radio communications before most of these newsgroupies
were in existance...never used morse code, never had to...but
only as a professional, not as an amateur.

I've pointed out the availability of a code-free license which provides
access to the VHF/UHF frequencies which you say are the new frontier.
Your motivation hasn't extended to obtaining one of those. You have no
incentive for overcoming your inertia.

Now that all the Techs have been chased off of VHF, where do you
'spect them to go?

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
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

You must be a professional Righter.

Get to work on Bruice/WA8ULX.

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been
speaking for you of late.

We just happen to agree that the Morse Exam has to go and that the ARS
is divided between folks who can accept change, and those who cannot.

Perhaps Len's mistaken views can be excused. He isn't, after all, a
part of amateur radio. You, on the other hand, should know better.

It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's
ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license".

I think working Frenchmen out of band otta be #2.

Okay, Brian, I'll do as you've requested.

THINGS WHICH ARE NOT LEONARD ANDERSON'S LIFE'S AMBITION

1. It is not my life's ambition to obtain an amateur radio license.

2. It is not my life's ambition to work Frenchmen out of band.

3. It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

Feel better now?

Morse code skills are needed ONLY in amateur radio...

...then it is one of those things which shouldn't bother you in the
least.

Bothers me.

I can deal with that.

according
to certain long-timers who have few other skills and ebody hatred
and bigotry against all on that one extremely important (to them)
skill in amateur radio.

I have lots of amateur radio skills, Len. Morse code proficiency is but
one of them. I use other modes and often QSO those amateurs who have no
HF access at all.

What? No Morse?

What? No HF?

Such as out of band Frenchmen on 6M?

I broke no Tanzanian regs, operated where I was permitted to be and did
nothing to encourage French stations to leave their alloted band
segments. If you, after all this time, still have a problem, you need
to follow the advice I gave you ages ago: Contact the French PTT and
the REF.

If it is your purpose as a newsgroupie to spread malicious lies
about others, to challenge "motivations" of those not thinking as
your holiness does, then you are doing a fine job.

Please tell us what you view as an example of a malicious lie which has
been spread about you, Leonard. It can't be about your lack of
motivation toward obtaining an amateur radio license. You've declared a
decades-long interest. You bragged that you'd get an "Extra right out
of the box". A code-free exam has been available for a number of years.
Straighten us out.

I am not "motivated" to love, honor, and cherish morse code as
the embodyment of expertise in radio of past times. Been in real
HF radio communications before most of these newsgroupies
were in existance...never used morse code, never had to...but
only as a professional, not as an amateur.

I've pointed out the availability of a code-free license which provides
access to the VHF/UHF frequencies which you say are the new frontier.
Your motivation hasn't extended to obtaining one of those. You have no
incentive for overcoming your inertia.

Now that all the Techs have been chased off of VHF, where do you
'spect them to go?

Really? The Techs have been chased from VHF? When and how did this
transpire? How would it keep Leonard from obtaining a code-free
license?

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
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

You must be a professional Righter.

No, I'm a mere amateur. I receive no payment for correcting Len's
spelling. Consider it a service to a professional.

Get to work on Bruice/WA8ULX.

That'd be a hopeless exercise. Bruce misspells more words than he
spells correctly. Besides, he never claimed to be a PROFESSIONAL
writer.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness
about driving but this one just keeps
getting skewed more and more. Now
you're writing about abortion instead
of child birth and NASA. You did not
write anything in your original comments
to indicate that you were discussing "child
birth policy" or "NASA policy".


I've explained that just about as much as I intend to. At this point,
you're simply using this to side-step the issues raised.


A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying
that.


Obviously. Like most of us, you have no intention of "buying" anything
that disagrees with your position.


(snip) Tell me more about the areas where
this country needs expertise.


Don't hold your breath, Dave. I have no desire whatsoever to get into a
long discussion about today's communications technology. If you truly want
to know more about that, a search of the internet may be worthwhile.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness
about driving but this one just keeps
getting skewed more and more. Now
you're writing about abortion instead
of child birth and NASA. You did not
write anything in your original comments
to indicate that you were discussing "child
birth policy" or "NASA policy".

I've explained that just about as much as I intend to. At this point,
you're simply using this to side-step the issues raised.

Not really, Dwight. You're now dancing around your earlier statements
in order to make them read like something different.

A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying
that.

Obviously. Like most of us, you have no intention of "buying" anything
that disagrees with your position.

....especially when we get into something which appears to be a sizeable
stretch of earlier statements.

(snip) Tell me more about the areas where
this country needs expertise.

Don't hold your breath, Dave. I have no desire whatsoever to get into a
long discussion about today's communications technology. If you truly want
to know more about that, a search of the internet may be worthwhile.

You may find this difficult to believe, but not all of us rely on the
internet as our primary source for information. You've mentioned
several times about areas where our country needs expertise but you've
offered not even a single example. I questioned whether a 5 wpm morse
test precluded someone from developing such expertise.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/20/03 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
ubject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/20/03 2:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members.

Check their annual postal statement. It's a violation for them to
purjure
that, and it delineates the number of "paid subscriptions" (ie: paid-up
members)

Steve, K4YZ


I was a member of the ARRL prior to earning my Novice ticket.

What was my call sign then?

I am sure there was a point ot your asking this question, Brain, even
though it was not part-and-parcel of the quoted item above.

Regardless of your licensure status when you joined the ARRL, the only
'relevence' would have been your voting staus. You were STILL a member.

Now...the point?

Steve, K4YZ

Let me think it through for you.

A non-member, me, receives QST. I am included in the annual postal
statement.

Every library is included in the postal statement.

Every club that subscribes is included in the postal statement.

Every foreign subscriber non-member is included in the postal
statement.

Now would you mind answereing the question: "So, give us an EXACT
number of ARRL members."

He cannot, so, as his "representative" in here, I will. :-)

According to the ARRL's own information, their last Publisher's
Sworn Circulation Statement was end of June, 2003.

At that time ARRL membership was 155,132.

Of those, 19,180 were Life Members.

All of the information is from ARRL's own website under QST
Circulation. There are some apparent discrepancies on that,
probably due to "creative rearrangement" of the data. For example,
the "average monthly paid circulaion" (six months, ending at end
of June) was only 142,992. Between that and the indicated
membership is 12,140 unaccounted for and not explained by any
sales to library/institution subscriptions (only 891) or net single
copy sales (only 1,784).

In the "average monthly paid circulation by type," the number of
issues to associations and members (including Life Members) was
140,317 and, with libraries and single copy sales, adds up to
142,311. That's off of Cathy's statement of 142,992 by 681. ?

If there were 682 thousand total U.S. amateur radio licensees at
the end of June, 2003, then ARRL membership is only 22.79%
and LESS than a quarter.

LHA

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's
representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been
speaking for you of late.

We just happen to agree that the Morse Exam has to go and that the ARS
is divided between folks who can accept change, and those who cannot.

Perhaps Len's mistaken views can be excused.

"Mistaken views?!?" :-)

The Lord High Executioner mumbled something again before he
fell off the scaffold in a drunken stupor...


... You, on the other hand, should know better.

Why do you say that?

Saying that as you do implies that you are a god of amateur radio
who has ALL the answers. You don't.


It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's
ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license".

I think working Frenchmen out of band otta be #2.

Okay, Brian, I'll do as you've requested.

THINGS WHICH ARE NOT LEONARD ANDERSON'S LIFE'S AMBITION

1. It is not my life's ambition to obtain an amateur radio license.

Explain to me why this is so "necessary," high holy god of ham.

2. It is not my life's ambition to work Frenchmen out of band.

I'm not keen to work them IN band.

Why is that so necessary, high holy god of ham?

3. It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

But it IS YOURS, right, high holy god of ham?


I can deal with that.

You can't deal a deck of cards...much less deal with debate on
issues...you always switch to insulting each and every person
who disagrees with your opinions.



Now that all the Techs have been chased off of VHF, where do you
'spect them to go?

Really? The Techs have been chased from VHF? When and how did this
transpire? How would it keep Leonard from obtaining a code-free
license?

Why must I obtain a "code-free license?"

Why can't it be a "coded" license?

I've had a code-free license since 1956.

LHA

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness
about driving but this one just keeps
getting skewed more and more. Now
you're writing about abortion instead
of child birth and NASA. You did not
write anything in your original comments
to indicate that you were discussing "child
birth policy" or "NASA policy".


I've explained that just about as much as I intend to. At this point,
you're simply using this to side-step the issues raised.


If one were to...well, waste time...reviewing many, if not all, of Dave's
posts; all Dave is about is posting replies that have no content other than
to pontificate and humor himself. There's nothing, *nothing* of any
substance whatsoever in a thing he writes...he's like a lawyer...


A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying
that.


Obviously. Like most of us, you have no intention of "buying" anything
that disagrees with your position.


Dave hasn't found his position yet...well, except for above others (he
thinks, anyway).


(snip) Tell me more about the areas where
this country needs expertise.


Don't hold your breath, Dave. I have no desire whatsoever to get into a
long discussion about today's communications technology. If you truly want
to know more about that, a search of the internet may be worthwhile.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I don't think Dave knows much more about the internet than downloading a
newsgroup...you know, he is so busy with "class" distinction and all...

Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Not really, Dwight. You're now dancing around
your earlier statements in order to make them
read like something different.


Nonsense, Dave. I mentioned three things in that message - "child birth,
international affairs with Belarus, and NASA space missions." You
intentionally took two of those out of context (a response to your message
about code testing), and ignored the third ("Belarus"), to suggest I was
talking about something other than government policy. On top of that, you
used this nonsense to side-step the real issue being discussed - your false
claim that personal experience was required to make informed decisions.


...especially when we get into something which
appears to be a sizeable stretch of earlier
statements.


There has been no stretch of earlier statements - just your attempts to
twist what was actually said.


(snip) You've mentioned several times about areas
where our country needs expertise but you've
offered not even a single example. (snip)


No, I quoted or paraphrased what the FCC said about that. Again, if you
don't understand it, don't hold your breath waiting for me to explain it to
you.


(snip) I questioned whether a 5 wpm morse test
precluded someone from developing such
expertise.


Since the main goal, as stated by the FCC, is to "...attract technically
inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country...," the question is
simply not relevant. The second goal to "...encourage them to learn and to
prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise"
comes after they enter this radio service. To be honest, I don't believe we
can achieve either goal with the continued emphasis on Morse code through
code testing. CW should join the other operating modes, allowing each person
to discover on their own what really interests them without being pushed
towards Morse code through a licensing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) All of the information is from
ARRL's own website under QST
Circulation. There are some apparent
discrepancies on that, probably due to
"creative rearrangement" of the data.
For example, the "average monthly paid
circulaion" (six months, ending at end
of June) was only 142,992. Between
that and the indicated membership is
12,140 unaccounted for and not
explained by sales to library/institution
subscriptions (only 891) or net single
copy sales (only 1,784). (snip)


While I obviously cannot be certain, most of those 12,140 issues are
probably free handouts, Len - sent to current advertisers, potential
advertisers, staff, those who wrote articles or sent pictures for each
issue, executives of various companies, industry insiders, news
organizations, politicians, and so on. It's a fairly common practice in the
publishing industry.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) There's nothing, *nothing* of
any substance whatsoever in a thing
he writes...he's like a lawyer...


Oh, come on, Kim. You know a lawyer would make more sense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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