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

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that
action taken.....

Need we rehash this again ??

What for...by your own statements you admit nothing
was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more
FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't
validate anything other than those FCC folks that
wanted action couldn't convince their management
that the case either had merit or was worth the time
and expense.

That's one way to look at it.
(insert standard "I'm not a lawyer and the following is just my layman's
opinion" disclaimer HERE)

Here's another:

Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at
the
time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any
number of the following):

- they made a dumb mistake
- they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow
- they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement
- they didn't think they could win
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to
light,
such as the limited size of the pool actually in use
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books
and
encourage imitators to do the same thing

Perhaps...and that is exactly my point. We will never
know because the opportunity to have prosecuted
is long gone and all this comes down to is academic
discussion or a BS session over a couple of beers.

All the academic discussion of what may have been
the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means
nothing in the end.

I disagree. It's an example of how things used to work, or not work.

I'll give you that. My point had to do with the legality
or illegality of what Bash did.

Most of all, the fact that no enforcement action was taken does not mean
there
was no violation. If a driver zips past a police radar setup at, say, 15
mph
over the posted limit but the police don't go after that driver, a
violatiuon
still occurred. The police in that particular case just decided not to go
after
the violator, for whatever reason.

But even in the case you site, the driver, if actually
prosecuted (given a ticket for 15 over) might be
found not guilty for any of a number of reasons.
Martha Stewart was NOT prosecuted for insider trading.
Was she guilty of insider trading? Many people
believe so...but apparently the prosecution didn't
believe their case strong enough to win and only
went after the lieing to federal investigators.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 28 Mar 2004 23:58:20 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at the
time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any
number of the following):

- they made a dumb mistake
- they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow
- they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement
- they didn't think they could win
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to
light,
such as the limited size of the pool actually in use
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books and
encourage imitators to do the same thing

You left out the real reason - the person who had the obligation
to carry any prosecution forward (long since retired and deceased)
was an expert in ducking anything that looked like work.

Wouldn't that come under "wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement" (ones
that required no work) and "made a dumb mistake" ?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On 28 Mar 2004 23:58:20 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at
the
time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose
any
number of the following):

- they made a dumb mistake
- they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow
- they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement
- they didn't think they could win
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to
light,
such as the limited size of the pool actually in use
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books
and
encourage imitators to do the same thing

You left out the real reason - the person who had the obligation
to carry any prosecution forward (long since retired and deceased)
was an expert in ducking anything that looked like work.

Too late now.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical

In your opinion, anyway.

Mine and that of many others, including at least one communications
attorney
and engineer.

and arguably illegal at the time.

a legal argument in academic concept only. Since the FCC
never tested the legality, the legal issue is moot.

That's like saying that if someone drives 85 mph in a 65 mph zone and is
not
prosecuted for it, that the violation is an academic concept only.

Speeding, especially 85 in a 65, is much more of a black & white
issue. What Bash did could easily be a very grey area with multiple
defenses (e.g. 1st amendment, etc).

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical
and
arguably illegal at the time.

Ditto my last.

Do you think it was ethical to obtain information the way Bash did?

I have no problem with what Bash did.

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office
and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Not at all.

It would be the equivalent of a techer using the SAME
test questions over and over again and in recognition of same, a
frat house eventually compiles a list of those questions based on the
memory of those frats that had taken the tests before.
Nothing
about what bash did is equivalent to sneaking into the teacher's
office.

What's the difference?

In the "sneak in" case, there is actual illegal activity...
not so with just memorizing questions and writing them
done later at the frat house.

If the teacher left the door and his/her desk unlocked,
and there was an unmonitored copy machine in the office, would it be
ethical
for a student to sneak in, find the test, make a copy and put everything
back
as it was? Why or why not?

You keep attempting to create an analogy to an
actual "covert" action by a student rather than
simply memorizing question 1 and writing it down
later. You are compariing apples and oranges.

But let's use your analogy and see where it leads.

Suppose the university had an "honor system" policy that specifically
prohibited divulging what was on a test. Would it be ethical for a frat to
compile question lists?

Don't know the validity of such an honor code and
or violation of that specifically. In the Bash case, however,
you are not dealing with any academic scenario...you are
dealing with a fedreal agency. Every day, there are 100s
of leaks, etc of federal memos, etc woth no one seeming
to care, prosecute, etc.

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that
would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along
with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All
with
FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source
of
the study guides.

In the end it made no difference.

It makes a difference in that ARRL
followed the rules and Bash did not.

What specific rules?

Bash obtained his materials by other methods,

And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the
means being legal or not.

Just as some drivers go way over the
limit and yet never get a speeding ticket.

Not the same. There are millions of cases which
show that speeding can and is prosecuted. There
is NO example case that shows Bash would have actually
been convicted had the FCC pursued it.

and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.

I know hams who did care.

Some do, I don't.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

How about this, then:

There was a time (several decades long) when ham license exams were given
by
mail if the ham-to-be met certain criteria. The written exams were sent to
the
volunteer examiner (no capitals) in a sealed envelope with a lot of
instructions explaining how the materials were to be handled. Included in
those
instructions were warnings not to divulge the contents of the test.

Would it have been unethical to make a copy of the test? Why or why not?

Again, you change the facts. If the test giver copied the test, I agree
it would have been a violation. BUT, if the test taker memorized
question 3 on that test and sent it to Bash after taking the test,
then I see no violaution or ethical issue.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't
think
it has a snowball's chance in

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days.
You
make an excellent point.

Good...so far.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC
get
out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

As the
treaty requirement is now gone,
and no other service uses it, why bother.

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse. If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the

[expletive deleted]

Jim, even I am not offended by "hell"

of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications.
Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through
much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered
out by
those testing and education systems.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written
exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a
perfect lid filter either. Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written
exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

You keep attempting to create an analogy to an
actual "covert" action by a student rather than
simply memorizing question 1 and writing it down
later. You are compariing apples and oranges.

Presumidly the teacher or prof doesn't use the same test year after year,
or even more than one session. So the memorizing and writing out the
test questions after the test is over has no effect, as that test will never
be given again. Now, if that test is actually used again next year, it
implies that the teacher or prof doesn't really care. Or too lazy to
bother. (Most tenured college profs consider teaching an undergraduate
class the equivalent of taking out the garbage, or just a big pain and waste
of time they would rather use writing up National Science Foundation grant
proposals or writing research papers to get published in some journal.
Profs are judged on how many papers they get published, not how well
they taught a class. And how many profs will just issue a grade of "C" to
someone he suspects downloaded the paper off the 'net rather than go thru
the trouble of accusing the student of that. He likely just wants to
get that
grading chore done so he can get back to the research.).

So that upper level person at the FCC who wanted to avoid the work
probably figured that Bash didn't matter anyway. Ham radio tests aren't
the same as say the state medical board tests in the sense that someone who
"cheated" isn't going to put a patient at risk.




But let's use your analogy and see where it leads.

Suppose the university had an "honor system" policy that specifically
prohibited divulging what was on a test. Would it be ethical for a frat to
compile question lists?



Don't know the validity of such an honor code and
or violation of that specifically. In the Bash case, however,
you are not dealing with any academic scenario...you are
dealing with a fedreal agency. Every day, there are 100s
of leaks, etc of federal memos, etc woth no one seeming
to care, prosecute, etc.



Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.


That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that
would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along


with


other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All


with


FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source


of


the study guides.


In the end it made no difference.



It makes a difference in that ARRL
followed the rules and Bash did not.



What specific rules?



Bash obtained his materials by other methods,


And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the
means being legal or not.


Just as some drivers go way over the
limit and yet never get a speeding ticket.



Not the same. There are millions of cases which
show that speeding can and is prosecuted. There
is NO example case that shows Bash would have actually
been convicted had the FCC pursued it.



and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.


As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.


I know hams who did care.



Some do, I don't.



In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.


In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.


How about this, then:

There was a time (several decades long) when ham license exams were given


by


mail if the ham-to-be met certain criteria. The written exams were sent to


the


volunteer examiner (no capitals) in a sealed envelope with a lot of
instructions explaining how the materials were to be handled. Included in


those


instructions were warnings not to divulge the contents of the test.

Would it have been unethical to make a copy of the test? Why or why not?



Again, you change the facts. If the test giver copied the test, I agree
it would have been a violation. BUT, if the test taker memorized
question 3 on that test and sent it to Bash after taking the test,
then I see no violaution or ethical issue.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

IIRC, there are some nav beacons and automatic IDers used on taxi dispatcher
systems and such using Morse code. But nothing I know of that sends out
"real" information using Morse code anymore.

I wonder if a commrecial broadcast radio station could legally ID using
Morse
code, or use phonetics. "Whiskey Alpha Bravo Charlie New York"

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...


Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE. It required a specific document
(separate from published regulations) from the FCC to permit its
use years after it was begun by Volunteer Examiners.

The argument raged in here due to the overtly sensitive psyches
of certain licensed amateurs who stated they were "right" because
they were licensed, tested, etc., etc., yet none of them were
involved in setting regulations for any radio service and certainly had
no power to enforce any beyond whining and crying in this
newsgrope. The only "regular" who had actual, legal experience in
communications law stayed away from the main argument.

LHA / WMD

Those VE's sure are a lawless bunch. And the rest of the PCTA are enablers.

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...


Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE. It required a specific document
(separate from published regulations) from the FCC to permit its
use years after it was begun by Volunteer Examiners.

The argument raged in here due to the overtly sensitive psyches
of certain licensed amateurs who stated they were "right" because
they were licensed, tested, etc., etc., yet none of them were
involved in setting regulations for any radio service and certainly had
no power to enforce any beyond whining and crying in this
newsgrope. The only "regular" who had actual, legal experience in
communications law stayed away from the main argument.

LHA / WMD

Those VE's sure are a lawless bunch. And the rest of the PCTA are enablers.

Sure would be nice if Lennie or Brain could produce a specification
document from the FCC that delineates what the "spacing" should be.

I know it probably won't happen, but it sure will be fun watching the
excuses fly as they try to dodge THIS "demand".

Steve, K4YZ

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
You keep attempting to create an analogy to an
actual "covert" action by a student rather than
simply memorizing question 1 and writing it down
later. You are compariing apples and oranges.

Presumidly the teacher or prof doesn't use the same test year after year,
or even more than one session. So the memorizing and writing out the
test questions after the test is over has no effect, as that test will
never
be given again. Now, if that test is actually used again next year, it
implies that the teacher or prof doesn't really care. Or too lazy to
bother.

Not an unusual situation in many campuses.

(Most tenured college profs consider teaching an undergraduate
class the equivalent of taking out the garbage, or just a big pain and
waste
of time they would rather use writing up National Science Foundation grant
proposals or writing research papers to get published in some journal.
Profs are judged on how many papers they get published, not how well
they taught a class. And how many profs will just issue a grade of "C" to
someone he suspects downloaded the paper off the 'net rather than go thru
the trouble of accusing the student of that. He likely just wants to
get that
grading chore done so he can get back to the research.).

Which is pretty pathetic for US academia.

So that upper level person at the FCC who wanted to avoid the work
probably figured that Bash didn't matter anyway. Ham radio tests aren't
the same as say the state medical board tests in the sense that someone
who
"cheated" isn't going to put a patient at risk.

But again, we'll never know. We can speculate till hell
freezes over and we'll never know.

(big snip)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK