Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: JJ
Date: 3/28/2004 8:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

William wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...

Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean
that the act didn't take place.


Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."

They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth
method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used?

Forget it, JJ...

Brain will never get it...He never HAS "got it", and no amount of
elementary school-level explanations could ever get it through to him.

He's one of those "I know what I know and the facts shall not deter me"
types....Just like his mentor, Lennie the Lame.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: JJ
Date: 3/28/2004 10:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote:

JJ wrote:

Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks!

A lot of people like to argue a point even if they are wrong.

Some "argue" it just in hopes of burying thier mistakes. That makes them
DOUBLY wrong!

A man's character stock goes WAYYYYYYY up when he's got the cajones to
just say "ooops, I was wrong", rather than play the games Brain and Lennie do.

Not that I'd ever expect them to...

73

Steve, K4YZ

"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]

Since when is "hell" (as refering to the place?) an "expletive"????

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.

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

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

Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any
great
extent.

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

[expletive deleted]

Bob can defend his own use of the word "hell" :-)

of it.

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

Code isn't a lid filter,

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

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

You mean before 1990? (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?

The written tests are not, and have never intended to be, a "lid filter."
ALL that they are meant to do is assess the applicant's basic level of
competence in the material the test covers ... they don't mean the applicant
is an "expert" in the field (not even the Extra test ...) ... they JUST are
a demonstration of the MINIMUM level of knowledge required for ENTRY into
whatever class license/privileges the test is for ...

I don't recall anyone claiming the written tests were a "lid filter" ...
however, many people asserted that the Morse test was (though the FCC
debunked that idea
back in 1989 or 1990 ...)

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

I don't favor the NCVEC proposal either (I prefer the ARRL proposal).

Carl - wk3c

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]


The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code
technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of
studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the
much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners
themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to

bypass

the Novice. People are strange.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to
the
vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital
modes, etc.

Carl - wk3c


I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental
waste of time learning the Morse Code and become.

Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired.

There is an amazing irony about one of the rrap regulars going on about
"a monumental waste of time", don't you think Brian?

Of course we are all experts in the matter! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , JJ
writes:

Mike Coslo wrote:

JJ wrote:

William wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...

Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean
that the act didn't take place.

Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."

They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth
method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used?

Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks!

- Mike KB3EIA -

A lot of people like to argue a point even if they are wrong.

Such as yourself.

The subject of "spacing" in telegraphy tests was long and drawn
out in the past postings on this newsgrope.

Part 97 did not, and still does not, describe International Morse
Code directly, nor does it define the equivalent word rate for same.
The only reference to International Morse Code is a CCITT
document found at the International Telecommunications Union,
itself having been replaced by an ITU document number some
years ago. I have that document. So does Brian Burke. No one
else in here has admitted having that document.

The "CCITT" (a French acronym translating to "International
Communications Consultative Committee') was formed many
years ago and was concerned primarily with wired commercial
communications systems. Cooperative regulatory actions in that
field are handled now by the ITU-T, the "-T" referring to Tele-
communications. Cooperative regulatory actions in radio are
handled by the ITU-R, the "-R" referring to radiocommunications.
The ITU is a United Nations body, has no separate "police"
functions, and all agreements are based on "good faith" of
diplomacy among all member nations.

In the CCITT document - a very long one, only part of which is
concerned with telegraphy - the character set coding of International
Morse Code is described in relative terms such as ratio of length of
dot to dash to character space to word space. It does NOT include
any definition of "word" in telegraphy nor does it define specifically
any word rate per unit time.

The "Farnsworth" method is, effectively, a two-rate system with
characters transmitted at a higher rate than "word" rate so that
is a distortion of the ratio specifications of the CCITT document
cited by the FCC in Part 97.

A "word" in telegraphy is - by common convention - taken to
be 5 characters plus a space interval. That is NOT defined
specifically in the regulations of any Part within Title 47, C.F.R.
A telegraphy "word" of 5 characters plus space dates back well
before radio existed and was common convention in commercial
wired telegraphy communications. The "word" definitions have
fallen out of regulatory text concerning telegraphy. The insistence
of "we've always done it that way" is extremely arguable in legal
situations and is not a per se definition for laws, rules, and
regulations.

Farnsworth spacing has been approved for U.S. amateur radio
telegraphy testing by the FCC in writing. That came some time
AFTER its practice had been done by some VE teams. It has
NOT been legally defined in detail by the FCC in regulations.

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

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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 and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

By all the time-honored practices used in college and
university written exam "cheat sheets" well before there
were any radio regulating agencies.

Stop trolling for an argument subject. The practice is
well known in many activities. It has been explained
by others in here. Dick Bash was a late-comer in the
FCC examination "typical test question-answer" area
in the USA. Many others were ahead of his company.

You waste our time, my time, everyone's time.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Dee's comments on Novice vs. Tech
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:13 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Dee's comments on Novice vs. Tech
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 9:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

They
both take time and both are worthwhile.

Not to me.

But who...better yet WHAT are you...?!?!?
So "we" are impressed by your opinions....WHY...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

I'm not impressed by your opinions either, but I don't stalk you all over
rrap.

So who's stalking?

This is a public forum, Brain.

Don't want to get your nose tweaked? Don't make stupid, easily disproved
assertions.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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 and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

By all the time-honored practices used in college and
university written exam "cheat sheets" well before there
were any radio regulating agencies.

How do you know this?

I never saw any "cheat sheets" in my undergraduate or graduate schools. Not
one, in any subject. You obviously have far more experience with that sort of
thing than I.

Stop trolling for an argument subject.

I'm simply asking questions, Len. You're doing all the arguing, name calling,
etc.

The practice is well known in many activities.

Not to me. I've never even seen a "Bash book", nor any form of professional
study guide derived by methods such as Bash used.

It has been explained
by others in here.

You seem very familiar with the process.

Dick Bash was a late-comer in the
FCC examination "typical test question-answer" area
in the USA. Many others were ahead of his company.

Such as?

You waste our time, my time, everyone's time.

How? All I did was ask some questions. You don't have to answer them. But for
some reason you are compelled to argue with anyone who does not agree with
everything you post.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:26:48 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

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

Not being prosecuted or otherwise
punished for an act doesn't mean
that the act didn't take place.

True, and it is equally valid that...
Not being prosecuted for an act
doesn't mean that the individual
would have been found
guilty of the act had he actually
been prosecuted.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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"

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

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 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.

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

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

"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 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.

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


Just one caveat. They probably need to request it in advance of the test
date as the VE team will probably have to order a special tape. I doubt
that the teams keep this on hand.


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



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


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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





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




Also you become able to do higher speeds sooner.

++++================++++==================+++++=== ==========++++
I'm having roast rabbit for Easter Dinner.... :-)

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

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


Just one caveat. They probably need to request it in advance of the test
date as the VE team will probably have to order a special tape. I doubt
that the teams keep this on hand.

Order a special tape???

Just whip out your trusty knee-key and send it.

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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

Have you not yet found any evidence to support YOUR assertion that
unlicensed radio services play a "major role" in "emergency comms"...?!?!

Inquiring minds WANT to know!

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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

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.

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.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(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?

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?

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?

He will mention the appropriate ARRL news item or notice. :-)

ARRL is a Final Authority, oracle of all amateur radio.

[as of the end of 2003, ARRL membership had shrunk to 21.3%
of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs}

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

But only AFTER the FCC approval.

There was NOT any specific definition of "word rate" either stated
or referenced in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., before, during, or after
that "approval" by the FCC. There still isn't.

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?

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

Really?

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.

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."

The only reference to International Morse Code standards is given
in 97.3 (a) (27). That standard does not define "word rate."

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."

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

"Barracks lawyers" are found everywhere, even if they haven't
served or been in seven hostile actions. :-)

LHA / WMD

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?).

Ever enforcement action anyone who truly didn't know that they were
violating
some rule? I'm sure everyone who ever maliciously QRMed someone knew full
well that that is against the rules. Maybe once in a great while you
find someone
who say set up a reverse autopatch on their repeater to respond to incoming
calls from the phone company. Heard someone did that and thought it was
okay if
the machine just said "incoming call, press * to allow caller's voice to
be transmitted".
Seems that there was still the problem that an unlicensed caller could
do something
to make a ham transmitter key up even though they couldn't talk over it
yet.


Whether one complies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"William" wrote in message
om...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...

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.


All currently available study guides, commercial tapes and CDs and software
trainers, and almost all shareware/freeware software trainers specifically
tell the prospective student that the exams are given using the Farnsworth
spacing for the 5wpm test. There is NO excuse for not knowing this.
Training tapes and records using 5wpm letter speeds would have to be quite
old.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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

"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

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.