| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
April 4th 04, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 4/3/2004 1:28 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal law mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test preparation. Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another. Not int eh current course of exchanges, it asn't. You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC website using their own, publicly-available search facilities. You DO have an answer, don't you? You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation. Sure I can. But in these changes, Brain was making the assertion. Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again, Lennie? I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates it. And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists for "Morse Code". 97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B, I. Morse code. That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R. available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations. October 2005? What happened to 1984 when VE testing began? There are several adult education courses available in your area to improve your personal reading comprehension skills. But why? I read quite well, Lennie. Well enough, in fact, ot ahve caught you and your surrogate in a number of "newsgroup faux pas" More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just because you like to see your name in print...?!?! You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years. But still you refuse to specifically cite it. I have yet to see a single "specification" that dictates character duration or spacing. There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote verbal battles that irritate others. If one does not want to be irritated, Lennie, then perhaps thye shouldn't be making dumb assertions they can't validate. It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real, serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of amateur radio. I dare say my "personal efforts" in Amateur Radio far outstrip the comments you've ever posted to EFCS, Lennie. Steve, K4YZ |
| 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
