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

(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.

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