Carl, I don't think it matters how many times you've stated *that* anymore.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I think that was a given from the start. Karl the HEAD CBplusser cant be
trusted. I think the "CBRRL" is run by morons like Karl.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"So Phuk'em" wrote in message
news:7HmQb.133575$I06.1201849@attbi_s01...

All you old timers & O.M.'s, cancel your memberships! The ARRL board of
directors and section managers are intent on destroying your enjoyment
of
the hobby and also in destroying the effectiveness of the service in
times
of national emergency. I'm sick at how the bands have become sounding
like
CB over the last 17 years, and the League is still intent on making
things
worse. So Phuk'em

I don't normally respond to anonymous trolls, but I feel compelled to
counter
your statements above.

IF you feel that the ARRL "is intent on destroying (your) enjoyment of the
hobby," you must get your enjoyment purely from a self-delusional sense of
superiority.

I've been licensed for well over 25 years. The ham bands have *not*
"become sounding like CB over the last 17 years" - there have always
been a few bad apples - MANY of them OTs who passed the 20 wpm
Morse test and believe they are some sort of gods.

Yes, new hams may make some operating errors and they may need
a little coaching and immersion in the "culture" of ham radio to get to
the point where they sound experienced. We ALL made such mistakes
when we first got on the air - learning by doing is the best way to learn.

So get off your high horse ...

I was unhappy with the ARRL's policy on Morse testing for a long time,
and I'm still not happy with the aspect of their new proposal that would
keep Morse testing for Extra. (Though I have nothing to gain personally,
since I'm already an Extra.)

HOWEVER, the ARRL does SO much good for ham radio that I finally
decided to take out a life membership - BEFORE their proposal came
out (not knowing what position they'd take on the code test).

If all the OT's bail out on the ARRL over this, they will be cutting off
their noses to spite their face.

I encourage everyone to maintain their ARRL membership. And, I
encourage those who aren't members to join. The best way to influence
the ARRL in a progressive direction is from the inside - join, then talk
to
your ARRL Director, make your views known, and let him/her know that
your vote in the next ARRL Director election in your division depends on
their performance.

73,
Carl - wk3c


Well Carl, our Director . Frank Butler don't even answer e-mails on the
subject, and others.

Knowing the gang of 15 is so on high I can only assume they have their noses
in the clouds that they can't hear us lowley constituits.

Most people I have talked to, on the air, and on the internet, think the
proposal is terrible. Most of which are/were ARRL members. And all to the
man saying they are dropping it.

Dream on. The ARRL does not listen. But its members read it loud and clear
.. Its called money. And to hell with what the members really want.

Dan/W4NTI

"So Phuk'em" wrote in message
news:7HmQb.133575$I06.1201849@attbi_s01...

All you old timers & O.M.'s, cancel your memberships! The ARRL board of
directors and section managers are intent on destroying your enjoyment of
the hobby and also in destroying the effectiveness of the service in
times
of national emergency. I'm sick at how the bands have become sounding
like
CB over the last 17 years, and the League is still intent on making
things
worse. So Phuk'em




-

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000
000000000000000000000000################0000000000 00000000000000
0000000000000000000##### #####0000000000000000000
000000000000000#### ####000000000000000
0000000000000## ##0000000000000
0000000000### ###0000000000
000000000# #000000000
0000000## ##### ###### ##0000000
000000# ####### ######## #000000
00000# ######### ########## #00000
0000# ##****### ###YOU#### #0000
000# ######### ########## #000
00# ####### ######## #00
0# ##### ###### #0
0# #0
0# #0
0# #0
0# #0
0# #0
00# # # #00
00# ## ## #00
000# ### ### #000
0000# ###### ###### #0000
00000# ######EAT **** AND DIE####### #00000
000000# #000000
0000000## ##0000000
000000000# #000000000
0000000000### ###0000000000
0000000000000## ##0000000000000
000000000000000#### ####000000000000000
0000000000000000000##### #####0000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000################0000000000 00000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000
0000000000000000000 Harvey Ball, 1922-2001 RIP 00000000000000

So Phuk'em wrote this troll:

I'm sick at how the bands have become sounding like
CB over the last 17 years, and the League is still intent on making things
worse. So Phuk'em



Have you actually listened to CB lately? Ignoring the heterodynes from the
AM carriers, it sounds completely different than even a crowded during a
contest ham band.

Well... I'm gonna try again. I posted this over 8 hours ago and it's
not shown up on my server yet so my apologies if it turns up twice.

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining. When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining. Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.
Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

Well... I'm gonna try again. I posted this over 8 hours ago and it's
not shown up on my server yet so my apologies if it turns up twice.

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining. When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining. Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.
Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Great post. Propose anything and there will be that minority that
opposes it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
ARRL and NCI

In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in 1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General, and
all Advanceds to Extra?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.
Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!
In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General,
and
all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.

Yes, there has.

Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC
restructuring.

Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment,
licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get an
indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks.

And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity, "box-stuffing"
and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still only
count as one person's opinion.

NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at least two
code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to note
what the majority of commenters wanted.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now

I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really say.

..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!

Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority?

Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been 70% "dump the code test" - we'd never
hear the end of it.

In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained". Majority
and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

Free upgrades, for one.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General,
and all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for
it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again
in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim
the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it
trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that
not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of
commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or
no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.

Yes, there has.

Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC
restructuring.

Two points:

1. That was 5 years ago and
2. That was NO survey and you know it. Yes, one can
derive statistics of those that DID comment, but the
stats are in no way automatically revealing of what the amateur
community as a whole may think. Anyone that ever
took a statistics class can tell you that.

Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment,
licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get
an
indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks.

WRONG for the same reasons I just stated above.

And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity,
"box-stuffing"
and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still
only
count as one person's opinion.

Again...this isn't done by a vote.

NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at
least two
code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to
note
what the majority of commenters wanted.

NOTE SPECIFICALLY: NCI never stated anything other than
the results of those that commented. Anything beyond that
would be speculation only.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend
since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable
unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now

I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really
say.

I took the general in 1957/8 timeframe and it was
no big deal for me as a teenager of 16.

..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS.

ROTFLMAO... You left out the "IMHO" on that.
As we have often decided...we'll likly forever be at odds
on that one :-) :-)

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!

Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority?

Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been
70% "dump the code test" - we'd never
hear the end of it.

Welcome to the world of political persuasion.

In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained".
Majority
and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry.

In the end it will come down to the FCC only...regardless
of any vocal minority or majority.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

Free upgrades, for one.

Free upgrades do NOT specifically go against anything in
the treaty or otherwise in the more broad based "world policy" .
If you think otherwise, please point out the conflicting
treaty text.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to
General,
and all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

Jim, how'd you let my comment about it not bothering me
pass without a comment from you :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK