Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

What is that to you?

It effects me because I am an active radio
amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no
way involved. (snip)

(snip) I think you must have me mixed up
with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a
bystander.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a
radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans,
no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur
and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Len has had his say on
countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he
knows some hams. He has no background in amateur radio from which to
make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. He wants
morse testing ended. Based on what special knowledge and background?
He wants a minimum age for amateur radio licensing. Based on what
special knowledge and background? His right to direct his opinion to
his government is intact. Government is not forced to agree with his
assessment of how amateur radio should be changed. I'm certainly not
forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from
sarcasm with regard to his views. Wanting to be involved does not make
Len other than a bystander in the world of amateur radio. He is not a
part of amateur radio simply because he comments to government or
because he posts here.

Likewise, I
saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the
participation of non-Amateurs.

Len has participated and participated and participated. He wants to
participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas.
Others are free to participate and may form their own opinions of LHA's
ideas. They are free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas.

You may not like what Len has to say, but the
lack of a Ham license alone should not diminish it or dismiss it.

There's no "may" involved. I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending posts. If you've
read Len's stuff, you'll have no difficulty in understanding that his
lack of an amateur license is not the only reason for making light of
his opinions regarding amateur radio licensing.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it,
Dwight. Len has had his say on countless
occasions. He isn't involved with amateur
radio though he knows some hams. He
has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision
regarding amateur radio testing. (snip)


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, if someone told me
to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you
would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant.

And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has
nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about
code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the
Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek).


He wants morse testing ended. Based
on what special knowledge and
background? (snip)


I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't
take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a
declining skill throughout the radio world. Or to read what the FCC and
others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form
an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion.


(snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with
his views, to respect his views or to refrain
from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip)


Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because
you think he should.


(snip) Len has participated and participated
and participated. (snip)


More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else.


(snip) He wants to participate and to prevent
others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip)


Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing
anything?


(snip) Others are free to participate and may
form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are
free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas. (snip)

(snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending
posts. (snip)


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. In the end, the
only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his
ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing
wrong with that, but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of
the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it,
Dwight. Len has had his say on countless
occasions. He isn't involved with amateur
radio though he knows some hams. He
has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision
regarding amateur radio testing. (snip)

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, if someone told me
to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you
would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant.

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.
I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be
meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that
your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. I
don't happen to think they would be. If you find that you have an
interest in a topic, I'd expect that you'd want to study it, learn a
great deal about it, participate to some degree--in other words, to gain
experience in the field under discussion. I'd expect, for example, that
someone who wants to participate to any meaningful degree in regulating
mining be schooled in mining and that someone who is to particpate in
the regulation of amateur radio be more than casually familiar with
amateur radio. If an individual has no background in a field and
attempted to preach to those actively engaged in that field, I'd not be
at all upset if that individual became "darned offended" or
confrontational. In fact, I'd find it fairly easy to go on with my
life.

And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has
nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about
code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the
Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek).

Well, he'd have to land somewhere on the issue, wouldn't he? He has
also arrived at a conclusion about code testing and about a minimum age
for radio amateurs which is at odds with the decisions reached by many
within the Amateur Radio Service (other people who have a background in
the subject).

He wants morse testing ended. Based
on what special knowledge and
background? (snip)

I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't
take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a
declining skill throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a
common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.


Or to read what the FCC and
others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form
an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion.

Which brings us back to an earlier point made by you: that Len's opinion
should carry the same weight as the opinions of radio amateurs. The FCC
has said, on a number of occasions, that they'd wait for a concensus
among radio amateurs. They did not see fit to include SWL's or those
who worked at a military radio station in Japan fifty years ago. That
aside, Len has formed an opinion and has, on countless occasions, voiced
his opinion.

(snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with
his views, to respect his views or to refrain
from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip)

Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because
you think he should.

Please point to one occasion in which I've suggested, requested or
demanded that the kindly old gent do so.

(snip) Len has participated and participated
and participated. (snip)

More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else.

Having the right to speak isn't the same as forcing others to listen, to
accept or to give the same weight to an opinion.

(snip) He wants to participate and to prevent
others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip)

Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing
anything?

Go to Google. Select this newsgroup. Enter "Len Anderson". Be prepared
to devote one or more evenings.

(snip) Others are free to participate and may
form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are
free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas. (snip)

(snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending
posts. (snip)

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.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the
posts of Bruce?

In the end, the
only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his
ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing
wrong with that,

You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google
search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to
just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not
bear that out.

but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of
the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid).

The stupid are those who'd take their ideas about amateur radio or
amateur radio licensing from one who is not involved in any way with
amateur radio.

Never underestimate the stupid. They are legion.

Dave K8MN

"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.


I take it that you believe that your opinions
on child birth would be meaningful or
relevant to a woman who has had several
children and that your views on space flights
would be found useful to NASA engineers.


Nice dodge, Dave. But we're not talking about a woman with several
children or NASA engineers - this is a discussion about government policy.
And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my
views to matter. After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing
is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all
Americans.


I didn't know a "special" knowledge or
background was required. It doesn't take
great knowledge, or an indepth background,
to see that Morse code is a declining skill
throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that
you and Len share a common mistaken view.
Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.


What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered
when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here. The FCC
itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last
round of restructuring when they said;

"We are persuaded that because the
amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service, the emphasis on
Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with
the basis and purpose of the service.
We note, moreover, that the design of
modern communications systems,
including personal communication
services, satellite, fiber optic, and high
definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies.
We also note 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. In contrast,
modern communication systems are
designed to be automated systems.
Given the changes that have occurred in
communications in the last fifty years,
we believe that 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."

The FCC went on to later say;

"We also note that most amateur radio
operators who choose to provide
emergency communication do so,
according to the amateur radio press,
using voice or digital modes of
communication, in part, because
information can be exchanged much
faster using these other modes of
communication. Further, we note that
in traditional emergency services, such
as police, fire, and rescue, there is no
requirement that emergency service
personnel hold amateur radio licenses
or any other license that requires
telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is
not a significant factor in determining an
individual's ability to provide or be
prepared to provide emergency
communications."

Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other,
non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio
service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio
services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside
Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion.


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.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where
I've supported the posts of Bruce?


I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's
posts as you've done with Len's.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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

"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
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

"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:

"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 -

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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?

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.

Offering an opinion and offering a sound opinion based upon experience
can be two quite different things. An opinion offered by someone who
has little or no knowledge of that being discussed isn't likely to be
worth much.

I take it that you believe that your opinions
on child birth would be meaningful or
relevant to a woman who has had several
children and that your views on space flights
would be found useful to NASA engineers.

Nice dodge, Dave.

Thanks. How did you know that I drive a Dodge?

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? Let's now discuss them as government
policy. What value would your suggestions on child bearing policy or
NASA policy have to those making decisions?

And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my views to matter.

We all have unfulfilled expectations.

After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing
is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all
Americans.

Your tax dollars couldn't provide fuel for a rocket engine test-firing.
Have your view. Speak your mind. Don't expect others to greet your
views with reverence if you have no background in the matter under
discussion.

I didn't know a "special" knowledge or
background was required. It doesn't take
great knowledge, or an indepth background,
to see that Morse code is a declining skill
throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that
you and Len share a common mistaken view.
Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.

What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered
when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here.

The mistake is in the view that morse use is declining in amateur radio.
It matters not that the morse isn't used much by other radio services.


The FCC
itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last
round of restructuring when they said;

"We are persuaded that because the
amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service, the emphasis on
Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with
the basis and purpose of the service.
snip
we believe that 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."

Morse testing is no longer emphasized as evidenced by the reduction in
speed to five wpm in testing for HF access. Now go out and prepare
yourself in areas where the U.S. needs technical expertise.

The FCC went on to later say;

"We also note that most amateur radio
operators who choose to provide
emergency communication do so,
according to the amateur radio press,
using voice or digital modes of
communication, in part, because
information can be exchanged much
faster using these other modes of
communication. Further, we note that
in traditional emergency services, such
as police, fire, and rescue, there is no
requirement that emergency service
personnel hold amateur radio licenses
or any other license that requires
telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is
not a significant factor in determining an
individual's ability to provide or be
prepared to provide emergency
communications."

Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other,
non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio
service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio
services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside
Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion.

Nothing in a five word per minute morse test prevents you from
performing public service work to your heart's content via digital or
voice modes. This public service work, according to FCC, is something
you may or may not choose to do. It is not mandatory.

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.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where
I've supported the posts of Bruce?

I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's
posts as you've done with Len's.

To be very honest, Dwight, Bruce is rather a dim bulb and I seldom read
his posts, much less respond to them. Is an ongoing effort necessary or
am I permitted to choose to which posts I'll respond?

Dave K8MN