Dee D. Flint wrote:





NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desirable privileges not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have
but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works.

Who determines "skills they should have"? And why? And who says that
the FCC is to be
the enforcer? Things like "instrument ratings" for plane pilots from
the FAA make sense; that
you should prove that you know (via a test) that you know how to fly a
plane and land it
safely when it's foggy. Else you'll likely crash it and kill yourself
and all aboard. But requiring
extra knowledge of radio to be allowed to operate SSB on 14.160 vs
14.322 is kinda silly.
It's almost like forcing kids in high school to learn Spanish or French.
I had to take
Spanish in high school, and as I don't own a landscaping business or
such, it was a total
waste of time. Japanese or Chinese would have been a more useful
choice, but the
high school didn't offer those. Or better yet some form of technical
writing English class.
But writing was a real PITA back when I was in high school, no word
procesors or
computers then. or printers. How did people manage to bang out
typewritten papers
without errors?

Subject: Wrong Yet Again
, Len!
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/3/2004 10:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Also, since you are insinuating that some 'specification' has not been
met, I'd like for you to provide us with a URL or other reference to said
'specification' as to HOW a code test should be prepared.

As a point of historical comparison, Steve, I wonder if "back in the
good ol' days" the FCC itself tested using Farnsworth Morse? Anyone know?

Sure don't, Mike...I sat...they tested...I passed, that was all I was
concerned about! =)

I remember that it was "easy copy", and that's about it...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/3/2004 1:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal law
mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test
preparation.

Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another.

Not int eh current course of exchanges, it asn't.

You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC
website using their own, publicly-available search facilities.

You DO have an answer, don't you?

You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much
easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation.

Sure I can.

But in these changes, Brain was making the assertion.

Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again, Lennie?

I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates
it.

And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists
for
"Morse Code".

97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B,
I. Morse code.

That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R.
available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition
existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations.

October 2005?

What happened to 1984 when VE testing began?

There are several adult education courses available in your area to
improve your personal reading comprehension skills.

But why?

I read quite well, Lennie.

Well enough, in fact, ot ahve caught you and your surrogate in a number of
"newsgroup faux pas"

More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just
because you like to see your name in print...?!?!

You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory
specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years.

But still you refuse to specifically cite it.

I have yet to see a single "specification" that dictates character
duration or spacing.

There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with
constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote
verbal battles that irritate others.

If one does not want to be irritated, Lennie, then perhaps thye shouldn't
be making dumb assertions they can't validate.

It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real,
serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as
Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of
amateur radio.

I dare say my "personal efforts" in Amateur Radio far outstrip the
comments you've ever posted to EFCS, Lennie.

Steve, K4YZ

Robert Casey wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Cell on VHF? Must be something new.

Some company wanted to do that with low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites a few
years ago. They were eyeing 2m and 222 and 70cm, as well as other spectra.

Let's get Dyno-mite JJ's take on VHF cell phones.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

But writing was a real PITA back when I was in high school, no word
procesors or
computers then. or printers. How did people manage to bang out
typewritten papers without errors?

You had PAPER?!?




LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/3/2004 1:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal
law
mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test
preparation.

Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another.

Not int eh current course of exchanges, it asn't.

You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC
website using their own, publicly-available search facilities.

You DO have an answer, don't you?

You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much
easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation.

Sure I can.

But you show NO sign of it. Saying you "can do something"
doesn't mean you CAN.

You want to be contentious, aggressive, and generally bad.
THAT you have proved over and over and over again.

But in these changes, Brain was making the assertion.

Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again,
Lennie?

See? There you go again with LIES and innuendo (apt homonym)
of homosexual behavior.

I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates
it.

And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists
for
"Morse Code".

97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B,
I. Morse code.

That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R.
available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition
existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations.

October 2005?

1 October 1995. Have to check out your responses, see if there's
any regress.

I have both year's printed copies. Paid for one, other was free.

What happened to 1984 when VE testing began?

Did George Orwell write about it?

Or do you mean the CCITT document?

Check it out at the ITU website. You can order your own copy if
you wish. Lots of downloads there cost money and the revised
and re-nomenclatured document costs a moderate amount.

I have my copy. Paid for it.

Then you can find out exactly what the FCC definition reference
has in it.

If you do actually get one and read it, you will NOT find anything
describing "word rate." Indeed, you won't find a description of a
telegraphic "word."


There are several adult education courses available in your area to
improve your personal reading comprehension skills.

But why?

I read quite well, Lennie.

Well enough, in fact, ot ahve caught you and your surrogate in a number
of "newsgroup faux pas"

Of course...snicker...just like "ot ahve" that you wrote and did not
correct.

More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just
because you like to see your name in print...?!?!

You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory
specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years.

But still you refuse to specifically cite it.

I have yet to see a single "specification" that dictates character
duration or spacing.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not reading well at all.

The CCITT document referenced in 97.3 (a) (27) describes RELATIVE
dot-dash-spacing times.

Hello? Can you understand "relative?" Other than in a family way?

I've said two years ago that there's NO "word rate" or "word"
specification mentioned in Part 97, not even a reference to such
a document.

The latest print issue of Part 97 is 1 October 2003. You can get it
from the USGPO. Download on PDF is free, paper hardcopy costs
a bit. Ask around.

There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with
constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote
verbal battles that irritate others.

If one does not want to be irritated, Lennie, then perhaps thye
shouldn't be making dumb assertions they can't validate.

"thye?"

It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real,
serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as
Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of
amateur radio.

I dare say my "personal efforts" in Amateur Radio far outstrip the
comments you've ever posted to EFCS, Lennie.

"EFCS?" Try Electronic Comment Filing System or ECFS.

Feel free to search the ECFS for how many comments I've actually
made and are on the public record. That is proof of filing, complete
to the entire contents.

Now go ahead and "prove" your "personal efforts" in amateur radio
so that there is no doubt of that effort. Sorry, you can't use the
general, no-detail, no-date "hostile actions" record...bragging is NO
proof.

And stay off the hundred-proof stuff. Don't drink and demod.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/4/2004 1:22 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again,
Lennie?

See? There you go again with LIES and innuendo (apt homonym)
of homosexual behavior.

Lennie...YOU are the one with the "homosexual behavior" propensities...

I was refering to the hand placed in the back of a puppet as the puppeteer
makes his mouth and head work.

Rethink YOUR innuendo, Putzy One.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/3/2004 8:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Too bad for you, Brain, that you can't see beyond your own wounded
pride.

Why do you s### on your fellow amateurs?

I don't.

Why do you find it necessary to make false assertions and use profanity in
a public forum?

Steve, K4YZ