Len Over 21 wrote:

In article t, robert casey
writes:

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)

That depends upon when you post.

I can't see such a personal identification as applying to my
advocacy to remove the morse code test from any test.
The subject of morse code testing should stand by itself,
without all the hoopla over test-passing.

That's odd. The subject of testing should stand without hoopla over
passing the test? Very, very odd.

The reality of the radio world is that morse code mode is
either dead or dying or was never born in every other radio
service but amateur radio hobby activity.

The reality is that amateur radio is the very activity in which the
morse code test remains. Morse code use is very much alive in amateur
radio.

Even then, morse
code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio
amateurs.

Many thousands use morse code daily within amateur radio.

The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the
morse code test is specious.

The reasons for attempting to remove morse testing are specious.

It serves no real purpose to
anyone desiring an amateur radio license...other than to act
as an "initiation rite" that is kept only because so many others
in the past were required to take that test.

That claim is specious.

The federal
government is NOT obliged to maintain fraternal order
initiation rites. That is something for membership groups,
not something for anything codified into law as regulations.

That claim is specious.

The argument maintenance of the long-timers boils down to
(via brainwashing by even longer-timers) them having to take
the morse test, therefore all others have to take it also. That
would be valid only if the ARS were an Amateur Radiotelegraphy
Service. It is not.

Your statment is specious.

The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC
as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing
qualification of amateur radio license applicants. It remains
(apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL
(not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations...because
they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse
test, therefore all others have to).

What a specious statement!

Some morse code devotees consider the test necessary to
"preserve and protect" manual telegraphy skills. The FCC is
not chartered as either a historic preservation agency nor as an
academic one. Its lawful activity is simply to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio.

Another specious statement.

Unless there has been some covert activity to circumvent the
Constitution of the United States, all U.S. citizens have the right
to "petition their government with their grievances." In smaller
words that means they can comment to any agency of the
government about any laws or regulations made by that government.
"Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT required.

You continue to make specious claims. You've petitioned your government
by using terms like: "Judging from the suppressed outrage of
long-tenured amateurs on the so-called free upgrade, one is tempted to
add 'where they belong!' but that is unkind and shouldn't be said.
Nonetheless, it is quite evident that class distinction is alive and
firmly entrenched in United States Amateur Radio." and "That satisfies
the hide-bound long-tenured's need to keep Technicians in the
no-code-test ghetto."
Your government is free to take no action on your statements. No one
here is required to give credence to your statements or even to read
your statments. No one is obligated to refrain from making light of
your claims, from ridiculing your claims or from taking heated issue
with your claims.

Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any
who so comment are "wishing to get a license." I do not so "wish."

I don't mind at all that you've commented to the FCC. I don't have to
accept your crap here though. I'm free to reject your ideas. I do.
I'm free to reject your manner. I do. As to whether you desire an
amateur radio license, such as an "Extra right out of the box", that
depends upon which phase of the moon or which year we're in. You've
said you do. You've said you don't. It doesn't matter. You've
commented to your government. Now provide us a document which
guarantees your right to have us to sit idly by while you expound here.

That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so.

Requirement? No. Motivation? You have not been motivated despite your
claimed, decades-long interest in amateur radio.

The elimination of the morse code test is simply long overdue and
should be done for the benefit of ALL citizens, not some aging
fraternity boys wanting to keep an initiation rite forced upon others
for no reason but their own personal desires. Those individuals
are NOT a regulatory agency at all despite their implications.

Sorry. Specious.

The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be
discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few
who cannot justify their side of the discussion.

Can we discuss your lack of accomplishments in amateur radio? In the
use of Morse code? Shall we discuss your use of terms like "Der
Kommandant" or "feldwebel"? Do you use those terms to justify your side
of the "discussion"?

You would do better to copy the methods of others and attempt
defamation of the person of those wishing to eliminate the code test.
That IS the way of those PCTA extras found in here.

But not the way of those using the "Der Kommandant", "feldwebel",
"Avenging Angle", "puts on his habit from time to time and tries to
strike
knuckles with her ruler", "Church of St. Hiram" terms? Should those
ways be copied?

You're a riot, Len.

Dave K8MN

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.


Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)



The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC
as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing
qualification of amateur radio license applicants. It remains
(apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL
(not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations...because
they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse
test, therefore all others have to).


Morse was a treaty requirement. Which has gone away.
It's just that the FCC hasn't gotten around to changing
the rules on it yet. They're more concerned about
wardrobe malfunctions and whatnot.....

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article t, robert casey
writes:

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)

At one time you said it *was* your intention, Len. So the above is obviously
and provably untrue - unless you were lying back then.

January 19, 2000, you said otherwise, Len. You said you were "going for
Extra right out of the box". You haven't done it.

Perhaps you changed your mind.

I can't see such a personal identification as applying to my
advocacy to remove the morse code test from any test.

Others can see what you cannot or will not admit.

The subject of morse code testing should stand by itself,
without all the hoopla over test-passing.

Agreed!

The reality of the radio world is that morse code mode is
either dead or dying or was never born in every other radio
service but amateur radio hobby activity.

Morse Code is extensively used by radio amateurs, however. Today, in 2005.
It's a big part of amateur radio - today.

An amateur radio license authorizes its holder to operate amateur radio
stations - not the stations of any other licensed radio service. Conversely,
*only* an amateur radio license authorizes its holder to operate amateur radio
stations - no other radio license does so. Therefore, it is logical that the
requirements for an amateur radio license should consist primarily of skills
and knowledge connected with the amateur radio service.

Even then, morse
code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio
amateurs.

If you consider the total number of amateur radio licensees, that's probably
true, because of the enormous number of fourth-class Japanese amateurs.

However, if you consider *FCC licensed* radio amateurs, that statement may or
may not be true. Repeated polls and surveys on the subject have shown that a
majority of US hams do indeed use Morse Code at least some of the time.

Even if your claim is true, Morse Code *is* used by a large percentage of FCC
licensed radio amateurs. Were license requirements to be limited to only those
things done by a majority of radio amateurs, there would be almost no test at
all for an amateur radio license.

The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the
morse code test is specious.

In your opinion. Others have very different opinions.

It serves no real purpose to
anyone desiring an amateur radio license...other than to act
as an "initiation rite" that is kept only because so many others
in the past were required to take that test.

Your opinion again.

The popularity and use of Morse Code in amateur radio is a sound reason for
there to be a test for it as part of the license process. The required testing
level has been reduced to a very basic level, and accomodations added, so it is
not a barrier to the vast majority of those seeking an amateur radio license.

The federal
government is NOT obliged to maintain fraternal order
initiation rites.

It is only your opinion that the test is such.

That is something for membership groups,
not something for anything codified into law as regulations.

The argument maintenance of the long-timers boils down to
(via brainwashing by even longer-timers) them having to take
the morse test, therefore all others have to take it also.

No, it doesn't.

The argument boils down to the idea that amateurs use the code, therefore a
test for it is reasonable.

Amateur radio is unique among radio services in that licensed amateurs have
unequalled freedom to design, build, repair, and operate radio equipment,
without undue certification requirements. Technical knowledge, skill,
experience and education are among the bases and purposes of the ARS. Morse
Code facilitates these goals because equipment for the mode can be simple or
complex, highly effective, and use a wide variety of technologies.

That
would be valid only if the ARS were an Amateur Radiotelegraphy
Service. It is not.

Radiotelegraphy is a large part of the Amateur Radio Service.

The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC
as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing
qualification of amateur radio license applicants.

That's what FCC said in 1999 - more than 5 years ago. But they have chosen not
to remove it yet, despite many proposals to do so.

Perhaps they have changed their mind.

Nor have most other countries chosen to remove it, even though the
treaty requirement was removed more than 18 months ago. Oddly
enough, Japan retains its code testing for 3 of its 4 amateur radio
license classes.

It remains
(apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL
(not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations..

How do you know this is true? Who in the FCC told you their reasons?

More important, though, is the fact that the commentary to FCC by *individuals*
has shown majority support for continuation of code testing. This was true in
the comments to 98-143, and in the total comments to the 18 or so proposals
on the subject filed with FCC since July 2003.

because
they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse
test, therefore all others have to).

Perhaps *some* feel that way. Not all.

I don't feel that way.

Some morse code devotees consider the test necessary to
"preserve and protect" manual telegraphy skills.

Is that a bad thing?

The FCC is
not chartered as either a historic preservation agency nor as an
academic one. Its lawful activity is simply to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio.

Regulation includes the protection and preservation of important
resources. That's why we have national parks and wilderness
areas. One aspect of amateur radio *is* similar to that of the
national parks and wilderness areas.

Unless there has been some covert activity to circumvent the
Constitution of the United States, all U.S. citizens have the right
to "petition their government with their grievances."

That's right. *ALL* citizens. That includes those who are licensed,
and those who are not.

In smaller
words that means they can comment to any agency of the
government about any laws or regulations made by that government.
"Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT required.

Who ever said it was?

The important and unanswered question is: why is someone who is not
a licensed radio amateur, nor a manufacturer of amateur radio equipment,
nor otherwise involved in amateur radio other than newsgroup postings, so
obsessed with the regulations for an amateur radio license?

Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any
who so comment are "wishing to get a license."

Who, Len? Be specific.

I do not so "wish."

Maybe not now, but five years ago tomorrow you said something very different.

That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so.

That's *your* problem.

The elimination of the morse code test is simply long overdue and
should be done for the benefit of ALL citizens, not some aging
fraternity boys wanting to keep an initiation rite forced upon others
for no reason but their own personal desires.

That's simply your opinion, plus some gratuitous insults thrown in. Nothing
more.


Those individuals
are NOT a regulatory agency at all despite their implications.

Who, Len? Be specific.

The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be
discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few
who cannot justify their side of the discussion.

Then do so, rather than simply deriding those who disagree with you.

You would do better to copy the methods of others and attempt
defamation of the person of those wishing to eliminate the code test.

??

What in the world does that mean?

Seems that you are *requesting* that I "attempt defamation of the person" of
others. Including you.

Why should I do that?

That IS the way of those PCTA extras found in here.

Who, Len? Give some examples. But be prepared to also see references to how
*you* have behaved towards those who disagree with you.

In article t, robert casey
writes:

Morse was a treaty requirement. Which has gone away.
It's just that the FCC hasn't gotten around to changing
the rules on it yet. They're more concerned about
wardrobe malfunctions and whatnot.....

"Wardrobe malfunctions?" You mean like the "socks" that the
Coslonaut was wanting to talk about? Oh, my.

Strange, but there's no mention of "socks" on the FCC pages.



Posted on 18 Jan 05

Lenof21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(Nun of the Above) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article t,
robert
casey
writes:

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)

At one time you said it *was* your intention, Len. So the above is
obviously
and provably untrue - unless you were lying back then.

Tsk. Bad on me...but bad on you.

First you say I "lie" about things, then you demand I hold to
those
"lies." Are you sure you know which way is up?

January 19, 2000, you said otherwise, Len. You said you were "going
for
Extra right out of the box". You haven't done it.

Perhaps you changed your mind.

Perhaps you didn't know YOU were the extra I "got."

I knew you had a thing for guys.

But we also knew then, and know now, that you are a pathological
liar.

You proved it before January 2000, you've re-proved it every month
since, and I have no doubt you'll continue to prove it in the future.

It's about the only thing you've done consistently throughout your
life.

That's why you were then, are now, and shall continue to be a
putz.

Embrace it.

Steve, K4YZ

Lenof21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article t,
robert
casey
writes:

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)

At one time you said it *was* your intention, Len.

5 years ago today.

So the above is obviously
and provably untrue - unless you were lying back then.

Tsk. Bad on me...but bad on you.

No, Len. You are mistaken - I'm not.


First you say I "lie" about things,

Where?

You were mistaken when you wrote:

"It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)"

because it *was* your stated intention, five years ago today.

then you demand I hold to those
"lies."

I don't demand anything of you, Len. But I do comment on your mistakes,
errors, logical inconsistencies, and general idiotic/immature/abusive
behavior here and elsewhere.

Rest of Len's useless drivel snipped.

Lenof21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(Nun of the Above) writes:

"Nun of the Above"...?!?!

More of your "I don't use pejoratives that aren't directed at
me"...???

Perhaps they have changed their mind.

Perhaps you are mistaken!

Try reading FCC 90-53.

Ahhhh.... A document that's 15 years old now...Just because you
can read it "today" does NOT make it "today's" policy or position,
Lennie.

Nor have most other countries chosen to remove it, even though the
treaty requirement was removed more than 18 months ago. Oddly
enough, Japan retains its code testing for 3 of its 4 amateur radio
license classes.

Are you going to get a Japanese ham license, benjo-san?

Now you are calling Jim a commode, Lennie?

WHERE has Jim made any such inference to YOU...???

Regulation includes the protection and preservation of important
resources. That's why we have national parks and wilderness
areas. One aspect of amateur radio *is* similar to that of the
national parks and wilderness areas.

Well then, have Congress transfer U.S. amateur radio licensing
to the National Park Service!

Lennie, YOU have made references to Amateur Radio being like our
national parks systems...Are you now retracting that opinion?

That's right. *ALL* citizens. That includes those who are licensed,
and those who are not.

Really? I thought the PCTA extras in here were all for the
suppression of the Constitution of the United States. They sure
give that impression.

Gee, Lennie...I counted over 17 "replies" to comments made by you
in various Amateur Radio relevent proceedings wherein YOU did
everything you could to try and sidetrack the comments of people who DO
have licenses and experience in Amateur Radio.

In smaller
words that means they can comment to any agency of the
government about any laws or regulations made by that
government.
"Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT
required.

Who ever said it was?

Poop Dave the 1st. He demands, you demand "motivation."

To quote YOU, Lennie, "Show your work". WHERE are the DEAMNDS you
insist exist?

The important and unanswered question is: why is someone who is not
a licensed radio amateur, nor a manufacturer of amateur radio
equipment,
nor otherwise involved in amateur radio other than newsgroup
postings, so
obsessed with the regulations for an amateur radio license?

See? YOU demand "motivation" plus rulings on the admissability
of any commentary!

He didn't demand anything.

He asked you a very valid question.

One you tried to dance around. Didn't work.

Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any
who so comment are "wishing to get a license."

Who, Len? Be specific.

OH? Am I - again - REQUIRED to state, for the record, something?

You must have short-term memory loss. Poor baby.

No "memory loss".

Simply putting you in the position of having to prove some of your
assinine assertions, the truthful answers to which would, of course,
disprove them!

Maybe not now, but five years ago tomorrow you said something very
different.

Tsk. Five years ago you couldn't read any better than you do now.
Which is to say rather poorly.

I think he reads quite well.

And I am sure you find it quite embarrassing that others are able
to locate can quote YOUR words to YOUR dismay.

Gosh. FIFTY-FIVE years ago I said "differently." Are you going
to
handcuff me and charge me with a felony something?

If stupid and arrogant were punishable offenses, you'd be on Death
Row. Of course in California it's "Death By Old Age Or Boredom Row".

That's simply your opinion, plus some gratuitous insults thrown in.
Nothing
more.

Poor baby. Strong language and differing opinions causing you
psychological trauma?

Strong language is all you seem to have to offer.

The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be
discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few
who cannot justify their side of the discussion.

Then do so, rather than simply deriding those who disagree with you.

See? There you go again, not justifying anything but adding all
those pejoratives about persons not agreeing with you.

What "pejoratives"...???

Seems that you are *requesting* that I "attempt defamation of the
person" of
others. Including you.

Nooooo...you ARE attempting to defame anyone not agreeing with
you.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

By reminding us of your previously stated opinions and actions
then turning them AGAINST you...?!?!

THAT is NOT "defaming" anyone.

Who, Len? Give some examples. But be prepared to also see references
to how
*you* have behaved towards those who disagree with you.

I've named them, sweetums. Now stop waving that court order
around
and show your shield. Tsk. You radio kopps sure don't know
procedure.

You've done nothing of the sort. You've not provided ONE
verifyable, documented quote as supporting "evidence" of your
assertions.

You HAVE provided tons of deceit, lies and "pejoratives" that you
claim others use.

Your "Nun of the Above" reference to Jim Miccolis in the opening
line of this post being of prime example.
Leonard H. Anderson is a putz.

Steve, K4YZ