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.

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.

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

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.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

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

In article , PAMNO
(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.

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.

So did the Q&A book folks.

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

So did the Q&A book folks.

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.

The Church of St. Hiram is sacrosanct, can do no wrong.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain
how the material was obtained.

So did the Q&A book folks.

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

Poor baby. You are mad as heck and you can't stand it anymore!

Take Bash to civil court then, nothing stopping you from trying.

Avenge all foes! Sound the hue and cry!! Love the ARRL!!!

That done, maybe you can fight against "J. K. Lasser's Your Income
Tax" annual publications.

I really think you ought to review Title 17, USC, Copyrights. If you
do, you will find that the United States government cannot
copyright its own works. That's been in the United States Code
for quite a while. The ARRL did not need to "seek any permission"
for republishing any FCC public material. They still don't need to,
just repro it and mention the source. No fees, nothing. Anyone
can.

There's a legal area that is a "grey area" for many on what
constitutes "ownership" of test materials. I'll leave that up to
attorneys and judges to thrash out...not to omniscient wanna-
be gurus who spout off on everything because they have an Extra
license and are good at morse code. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(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?

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.

So did the Q&A book folks.

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

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

So did the Q&A book folks.

One more time:

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

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.

The Church of St. Hiram is sacrosanct, can do no wrong.

If you say so, Len ;-)

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain
how the material was obtained.

So did the Q&A book folks.

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

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

Poor baby. You are mad as heck and you can't stand it anymore!

I'm simply stating an opinion on what Dick Bash did. Do you think his actions
were legal? Do you think they were in the best interests of amateur radio?

Take Bash to civil court then, nothing stopping you from trying.

Actually, there is:

- Statute of limitations
- Rules changes since then

Avenge all foes! Sound the hue and cry!! Love the ARRL!!!

Well, you're staying right on topic, Len. You're wrong yet again.

That done, maybe you can fight against "J. K. Lasser's Your Income
Tax" annual publications.

Why?

I really think you ought to review Title 17, USC, Copyrights. If you
do, you will find that the United States government cannot
copyright its own works.

It's not about copyrights at all.

That's been in the United States Code
for quite a while. The ARRL did not need to "seek any permission"
for republishing any FCC public material. They still don't need to,
just repro it and mention the source. No fees, nothing. Anyone
can.

Then what's your problem?

There's a legal area that is a "grey area" for many on what
constitutes "ownership" of test materials. I'll leave that up to
attorneys and judges to thrash out...

In the instructions for the by-mail test I took for Novice, their were explicit
directions not to copy or divulge the contents of the test. The signatures of
the applicant and the volunteer examiner certified compliance with all of those
instructions. Most of us took them very seriously. Bash didn't.

Of course you wouldn't know about that, never having had an amateur license of
any type...

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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. Itwould 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.

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.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods,

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

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

As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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 ??

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
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.
..
All the academic discussion of what may have been
the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means
nothing in the end.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"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."