Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:22 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/23/2004 5:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Changing my words, putting them in quotation marks and saying they're
mine, and then asking me to validate them is a lose/lose proposition.

So is asking you a direct question, it appears.

I cannot validate what I didn't say.

No one expects you to, Brian,

You do.

but I DO expect you to answer the question
"what "major role" do the unlicensed radio services play in "emergency
comms"".

See what I mean?

Go get the proper, accurate quote.

Best of Luck, because at this point you really do believe I said that.
That's what I meant by you repeating a lie over and over again until
even you believe it.

No problem, Brain.

By now you've seen the other thread I opened wherein I SPECIFICALLY quoted
the post you made wherein you DID make the assertion.

It's not about what I believe...

It's about what YOU said.

Now you have to back it up...sorry you don't have the facts with which to
do it. Kinda left yourself hanging out there. I've tried to "throw you a
rope" a couple times, but you keep tying it around your neck...Sorry about
that!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote ...

And you've trained your volunteers to some standard?

Our "volunteers" are government employees who have this duty assigned to
them as part of their employment, and they are well trained in EM. All of
the angencies that support us have trained their volunteers via either
RACES
or ARES in EM. Of course, that training varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but there is little we can do to enforce our standards on
them.

I could be wrong, but I think only school teachers and the ARRL's W1AW
Operator are allowed to be paid while using amateur radio.

And for once you'd be right. Congratulations.

I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted us --

and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in
contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place. We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF. The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Fair enough.

It only took you three days.

Steve, K4YZ

For those that might be interested, here is some info from the NCVEC
proposal:

From Part II (Proposal), section 19. (basic framework of the new entry
level license) Paragraph d.

Power limits. Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 mHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 mhz.
This allows enough power for adequate communication under most
circumstances, and matches the nominal power output of the largest
number of commercially available transmitters and transceivers available
as of this writing.

The use of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for
RF safety evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated
threshold values for the frequencies concerned.

(end paragraph d)


Okay, so the NCVEC petition *does* specifically ask for restricted
power on their "communicator" class license.


First, I like Carl's note on the name. Novice is so much better. It is
a time honored name, and although some may think this superfluous, it
looks good in print, and sounds good too. I like having just two easy to
say syllables, instead of 5!

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

- mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

You can troll here or you can submit Comments to the FCC on
RM-10870. Which will be the more effective on the "amateur
community?" :-)

Since the NCVEC petition rejects the morse code test for all
classes, that should be an excellent reason for you to reject it.
[you are PCTA]

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs. It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/23/2004 5:30 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


No mistruth in what I said. Much mistruth in what you """quoted."""

Once and I would call it an honest mistake.

Again and again?

I call that nuts.

I see......

You didn't lie, but what I quoted, which WAS what you said, IS a
lie...?!?!

You did not quote what I said.

Uh huh.

You've got some real brass cajones to make an assinine statement like
that, Brain!

Make up your mind(s). Either I have none or I have brass ones.

I've asked you the same question over and over in response to YOUR
assertion that "unlicensed services" play a "major role" (YOUR ADJECTIVES)
in
"emergency comms"...WHERE is the proof...?!?!

Yes, you have. Unfortunately one of your adjectives is incorrect.

You can call me "nuts" if you care to. YOUR words are archived in
this
forum and have been quoted verbatim on numerous occassions.

My posts are archived and my words have been quoted verbatim on numerous
occassions.

But unfortunately for you, this is not one of those time.

Best of luck.

Forunately (for me) I don't need luck. I have your own words in Google.

Idiot.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

For those that might be interested, here is some info from the NCVEC
proposal:

From Part II (Proposal), section 19. (basic framework of the new entry
level license) Paragraph d.

Power limits. Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 mHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 mhz.
This allows enough power for adequate communication under most
circumstances, and matches the nominal power output of the largest
number of commercially available transmitters and transceivers available
as of this writing.

The use of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for
RF safety evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated
threshold values for the frequencies concerned.

(end paragraph d)


Okay, so the NCVEC petition *does* specifically ask for restricted
power on their "communicator" class license.

Yep - just like I posted here back on March 18.

First, I like Carl's note on the name. Novice is so much better.

I prefer "Basic". Descriptive, new, fits in the class structure (Basic,
General, Extra) and avoids confusion with the existing Novice class.

It is
a time honored name, and although some may think this superfluous, it
looks good in print, and sounds good too.

Some folks might thing we're trying to recruit nuns.

I like having just two easy to say syllables, instead of 5!

Ba-sic

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

Yep:

- No homebrewing from scratch
- No rigs with more than 30 volts on the finals
- "Signed stament" instead of regs testing

73 de Jim, N2EY