| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
April 1st 04, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
| My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
| Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| What's All Dose Numbers Hams Use | Dx | |||
Threaded Mode
