"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 7:40 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:55:46 GMT

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.

Actually, it did have a legal basis.

The FCC was informed

By whom?

Does it matter?

Do you matter?

The FCC has placed "ringers" in VE tests before and has never...not even
once...questioned the validity, quality or method of delivery of Element 1.

of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams.

"Standard practices?"

Wow!!! A wasted piece of correspondence if there were ever one!

"I hereby inform the FCC that I am using standard, good amateur
practices. Does the FCC agree or disagree? You have 72 hours to
respond. Without a dissenting opinion, this standard, good amateur
practice becomes law."

Hihi!

Why would the VEC's have to inform the FCC of standard, good amateur
practice???

Because they weren't standard?

Because they were at variance with the regulations?

How long after the fact of implementing these "standard practices" did
the VEC's notify the FCC?

Brain, you really are stretching for a "pont" to make, aren't you?

Stretching usually isn't necessary to punt.

FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams.

Can you document that the FCC even received such a notification?

Can you document they ahven't?

I'm not the one making the claim of such correspondence.

Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Hmmm? Wonder what a person would call "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse
Code?

Indeed. Does it matter? The FCC itself ahs no argument with it.

Lots of typos today, Steve. Time to check your digital pill minder.

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Really?

Really.

I understand Morse Code perfectly (to about 40WPM in contests...25WPM in
"routine" QSO's...I have no problem with it at all.

What you understand is immaterial. We are talking about newcomers to
the service taking their first exam. It's not as if they have a lot
of experience at it.

Those who study "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code may not know enough
to ask for "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code. They will be
unprepared for the significantly faster delivery of Farnsworth Code -
and they fail. They go home scratching their head wondering why they
choked on the exam.

Oh?

You have some "scientific" studies that valiate this asertion, Brain?

Did you mean "assertion, Brian?"

You've done a side-by-side comparison of different methodologies to
validate this?

Those who've studied Farnsworth Code pass Farnsworth Exams.

Those who've studied Morse Code typically do not pass Farnsworth
Exams.

Just FYI, the "non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code" is referred to as
Morse Code. You will find references to it in Part 97, but you will
find no reference to "Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code."

There is NO reference to spacing techniques in Part 97 for Morse Code.

You are a genius.

There is no "technical specification" for Morse Code in any federal
regulation that I am aware of. Post one and I will acknowledge it publically.

You said you know Morse Code to 40wpm in contests, and to 25wpm in
routine QSO's.

How can you make that statement?

Post it, show me a federal law that says THIS is the "Morse Code" that
MUST be used and I will send you a Savings Bond for $100.

Please send me nothing directly.

Considering the number of times that Part 97 has been toyed with, you
would think that the FCC could make a mention of it. But they
haven't. So much for your "legal basis."

English jurisprudence has established that those things not specifically
prohibited or regulated by law are not illegal...Therefore ARE "legal".

Thus, you find Morse Code required for Exams.

In plain terms, that would be Morse Code.

All you repeat again and again is the "non-dissenting FCC opinion."
So what is the date of this correspondence?

Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?

That is what I asked.

Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it was
improper or illegal to use?

I believe that the FCC is unaware.

"William" wrote in message
m...
Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?

That is what I asked.

Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it
was
improper or illegal to use?

I believe that the FCC is unaware.

After nearly 20 years or so, the FCC is unaware?? Not hardly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"William" wrote in message
om...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message

...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier

to

copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.


No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Len couldn't learn and pass the code test no matter what method was
used, that is what chaps his rear so much.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of
other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there were
no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

AFTER the fact.

So what?

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

How do you know?

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

How do you know that FCC was not contacted by the VECs? How do you know what
method of code testing was used by FCC when they gave the tests?

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

Do you have any proof of that claim?

I didn't think so.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Phil Kane wrote:

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Nowadays one can download a copy off the 'net. Of course one needs to
know what
"pecuniary" means, and such. Which means that you can't use a 2 meter
repeater to
dispatch taxi cabs, or if you're a real estate agent to auto-patch call
your office to
work a house sale. Nowadays with cell phones, I doubt anyone would consider
doing this. This rule is a good one; it keeps businesses from invading
our bands and taking over (lawsuits over QRM, anyone?).

The FCC recently issued an NAL to the owner of a restaurant in Westville, New
Jersey, for the use of a "cordless phone" that operated in the 2 meter band.
The owner used it to coordinate take-out deliveries without the cost of a cell
phone. FCC had earlier warned the restaurant owner, who stopped using the setup
for a time and tried FRS/GMRS. But the FRS/GMRS sets had insufficient range and
unreliable coverage, so he went back to using the "cordless phone".

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of
other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there were
no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

AFTER the fact.

So what?

So all those years that it was in use WITHOUT a legal basis, that's
what.

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

How do you know?

Why don't you know?

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

How do you know that FCC was not contacted by the VECs? How do you know what
method of code testing was used by FCC when they gave the tests?

If the FCC is going to require an exam for licensure, shouldn't the
public know what the requirements are?

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

Do you have any proof of that claim?

I didn't think so.

We've been through this before.

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 3/31/2004 8:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

How do you know?

Ouiji Board.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 5:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Does it matter?

Do you matter?

Of course I do. Just like you matter.

The FCC has placed "ringers" in VE tests before and has never...not
even
once...questioned the validity, quality or method of delivery of Element 1.

of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams.

"Standard practices?"

Wow!!! A wasted piece of correspondence if there were ever one!

"I hereby inform the FCC that I am using standard, good amateur
practices. Does the FCC agree or disagree? You have 72 hours to
respond. Without a dissenting opinion, this standard, good amateur
practice becomes law."

Hihi!

Why would the VEC's have to inform the FCC of standard, good amateur
practice???

Because they weren't standard?

Because they were at variance with the regulations?

How long after the fact of implementing these "standard practices" did
the VEC's notify the FCC?

Brain, you really are stretching for a "pont" to make, aren't you?

Stretching usually isn't necessary to punt.

Sure it is...But you're STILL stretching to make a POINT.

FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams.

Can you document that the FCC even received such a notification?

Can you document they ahven't?

I'm not the one making the claim of such correspondence.

Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for
their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Hmmm? Wonder what a person would call "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse
Code?

Indeed. Does it matter? The FCC itself ahs no argument with it.

Lots of typos today, Steve. Time to check your digital pill minder.

Redirect from the topic to the typos noted.

Also noted, and even more glaringly obvious, is any lack of response on
YOU part to the issues discussed.

Casught with no valid response to the topic being discussed, Brain tries
to duck out with a childish reference to "typos".

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use
of
Farnsworth spacing.

Really?

Really.

I understand Morse Code perfectly (to about 40WPM in contests...25WPM
in
"routine" QSO's...I have no problem with it at all.

What you understand is immaterial. We are talking about newcomers to
the service taking their first exam. It's not as if they have a lot
of experience at it.

No, they don't. But they, like any other adult in the United States, do
have an obligation to inform themselves of the testing criteria, potential
pitfalls, and their rights under FCC and/or other U.S.Government regulations.

Those who study "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code may not know enough
to ask for "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code. They will be
unprepared for the significantly faster delivery of Farnsworth Code -
and they fail. They go home scratching their head wondering why they
choked on the exam.

Oh?

You have some "scientific" studies that valiate this asertion, Brain?

Did you mean "assertion, Brian?"

You've done a side-by-side comparison of different methodologies to
validate this?

Those who've studied Farnsworth Code pass Farnsworth Exams.

Those who've studied Morse Code typically do not pass Farnsworth
Exams.

Just FYI, the "non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code" is referred to as
Morse Code. You will find references to it in Part 97, but you will
find no reference to "Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code."

There is NO reference to spacing techniques in Part 97 for Morse Code.

You are a genius.

Thank-you for stating the obvious.

Now allow me to return the favor.

You're an ill-informed, arrogant, rheorical little toad with little if any
appreciation for ANY of the topic material of which you attempt to engage
others in in this forum.

There. We're even.

There is no "technical specification" for Morse Code in any federal
regulation that I am aware of. Post one and I will acknowledge it
publically.

You said you know Morse Code to 40wpm in contests, and to 25wpm in
routine QSO's.

How can you make that statement?

Becasue I know how to determine the speed at which I am sending. Comes
with PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.

Post it, show me a federal law that says THIS is the "Morse Code" that
MUST be used and I will send you a Savings Bond for $100.

Please send me nothing directly.

I'll do as I please.

Is this an acceptance of the challenge, or do you conceede that no such
document exists?

Considering the number of times that Part 97 has been toyed with, you
would think that the FCC could make a mention of it. But they
haven't. So much for your "legal basis."

English jurisprudence has established that those things not
specifically
prohibited or regulated by law are not illegal...Therefore ARE "legal".

Thus, you find Morse Code required for Exams.

I find Morse Code required for the General Class and the Amateur Extra
based upon FCC rules and regulations, and in appreciation for the on-going
"discussion' in public forums to determine if it will remain a requirement in
the future.

Do you disagree that FCC rules and regulations dictate the demonstration
of Morse Code proficiency skills in ELement 1?

In plain terms, that would be Morse Code.

No kiddin', eh...?!?! I figgered you were just pulling that one out of
your hat.

All you repeat again and again is the "non-dissenting FCC opinion."
So what is the date of this correspondence?

Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?

That is what I asked.

And you were told....repeatedly.

Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it
was
improper or illegal to use?

I believe that the FCC is unaware.

I believe you're an idiot. It's been well documented in this forum form
the last couple of weeks. Nice job.

Steve, K4YZ

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.