|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I see that the FCC is not anticipating any changes in the Morse code licensing requirements before 2006. Where did you see that, Mike? http://www.arrl.org/?news_list_off=15 Well, they've been right about it so far. Way back in 2003 they said "at least two years" which seemed incredible at the time. Many of us thought they'd just dump Element 1 by MO&O (if that's the right acronym) in a few weeks/months. There were even several petitions to that effect. But it's pretty clear that FCC is going the whole NPRM route, and in no big hurry to do so. I hope it's true. I want the situation to stabilize. In a world where the testing requirements are in a state of flux - and it is a given that the testing regimin is likely to get easier, not more difficult - many people will take the path of least resistance and wait until requirements are dropped. I think a few people will. Just as some people will wait until an item drops below a certain price before they'll buy one, or replace the one they've got. Status quo MUST be held as long as possible...? :-) Why? However I don't think there are large numbers of people waiting for Element 1 to go away before they get their amateur licenses. The only ones who've claimed "large numbers" is the ARRL in their regular propaganda "news." :-) Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the self-interest of the very ardent ham fanatics. Assuming that we place stock in the popularity of a hobby as the reason for getting into the hobby. I don't get into hobbies because other people are into them, I get into them because they interest me. That is *if* they are dropped. But as I noted, there is always *someone* to say that the element one test is going to be eliminated "any day now"... It's been a year and a half since WRC 2003 and there's no change in sight. NPRM cycles are long enough that it's very reasonable to expect no action until 2006. So once again, ARRL news is right on the money. If the ARRL says it, it MUST be true. :-) I see no reason to disbelieve the story. Have some evidence that it might not be credible? Belief system is working well, we see... Of course there are always a noisy few who will say they're going to get a ham license, but who never seem to get the proverbial round tuit. I recall one very regular poster here who told us, way back in January 2000, that he was going for Extra "right out of the box". He just didn't say *when*. Shall we continue to lower the standards of the ARS to accomodate such people? I say no. Of course not...morsemanship is the very HIGHEST attainable goal in radio amateurism. Incorrect. All MUST aspire to be the best "radio operator" circa 1930s era if they are amateurs. Incorrect. And with very rigid, inflexible rules of behavior as if the hobby were a sort of profession where all rules MUST be followed. I don't know how "rigid" the rules are, but yes there are rules to follow, and most of them seem straightforward enough. Removing the morse test is a 1930-standards "dumbing down." Can't have that! Time is held in stasis in amateurism and all must remain as it was when all the superextras took Their tests. It has no validity in this new millennium. After all, when the morse test is eliminated, all those superextras won't have much to brag about, will they? :-) Your mythical superextra will then have MORE to brag about, and they will be able to sit back in their lounge chair or around the pot bellied stove, puff out their chests and proclaim how they had to pass the REAL tests, and on and on and on and on....... - mike KB3EIA - |
Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the self-interest of the very ardent ham fanatics. It's roughly comparable to other hobby activities like amateur astronomy, model railroading, model airplanes, and such. Model railroaders and amateur astronomers, as well as ham, are concerned about low numbers of younger people getting into their activities. And these other activities don't need a license. |
Mike Coslo wrote:
I don't know how "rigid" the rules are, but yes there are rules to follow, and most of them seem straightforward enough. Most of the rules are sensible enough. Even that one about "no pecuniary interest". That rule exists to protect our ham bands from being taken over by business people who happen to have amateur licenses. We don't want taxi companies clogging 2 meters. Some rules are a bit strange in the sense that it doesn't take more skill to operate on 14.165 SSB than at 14.323 SSb. The FCC did it because it's very easy to determine your carrier frequency from a remote location. It's a lot harder for them to figure out how much power you are running unless they pay you a visit. |
robert casey wrote:
Actually, in the hobby activities in the USA, amateur radio is NOT very high on the list. That's reality, despite all the self-interest of the very ardent ham fanatics. It's roughly comparable to other hobby activities like amateur astronomy, model railroading, model airplanes, and such. Model railroaders and amateur astronomers, as well as ham, are concerned about low numbers of younger people getting into their activities. And these other activities don't need a license. I think that the way people get into these hobbies is changing. Whereas so many Hams I know now have been hams for about a gazillion years, I may be part of the new paradigm. I got my first license when I was 45 years old. I got into amateur astronomy when I was 40. Amateur radio takes some more outlay to get into than it used to (yeah, I suppose a young technician could lay out 75 bucks for a really cheap HT, but getting on a repeater isn't my idea of a really fun hobby. GEtting on HF is. And Astronomy has a double whammy in that most young people can't do much observing in their back yards with the terrible state of light pollution. Most of the time, I pack up my scope and drive to one of three spots. The closest is an hour away, and the other two are 2 and 3.5 hours away respectively. Not many young'uns will be able to do that kind of thing. So I think Ham radio is simply changing its face more than going away. - Mike KB3EIA - |
robert casey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: I don't know how "rigid" the rules are, but yes there are rules to follow, and most of them seem straightforward enough. Most of the rules are sensible enough. Even that one about "no pecuniary interest". That rule exists to protect our ham bands from being taken over by business people who happen to have amateur licenses. We don't want taxi companies clogging 2 meters. And how! Some rules are a bit strange in the sense that it doesn't take more skill to operate on 14.165 SSB than at 14.323 SSb. The FCC did it because it's very easy to determine your carrier frequency from a remote location. It's a lot harder for them to figure out how much power you are running unless they pay you a visit. - mike KB3EIA - |
In article , (Jeffrey Herman)
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: But, in 2004, U.S. radio amateurs MUST still pass a morse test to "qualify" for operating an amateur radio transmitter on HF. No other radio service (other than certain Maritime radio services) require morsemanship testing. Since you opened the door, let's do some further comparisons of the ARS to other services: * We purposely operate using as little power as possible (QRP), they don't Heh heh heh. Crock of something. All one has to do is listen to the HF bands during contests and observe the S-Meter readings. Tsk. The military has built-in "QRP" (equivalent) controls to HF through UHF transceivers and has done so since at least 1989. * We have antenna measuring contests with home-built antennas, they don't Most other radio services use already-measured antennas with professional installations plus more measurements after installations. No "contests" needed. :-) * We conduct emergency comms when other services are down, they're down Another crock. Tsk. You should see some of the urban emergency services' communications facilities, their training plans, listen to their on-air exercises and drills. Better yet, live through a real, live emergency and see how the entire network can operate with "work-arounds." Case in point: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles where all the public safety and utility companies' were "netted" together to keep things going. The only thing "down" was buildings, poles, etc., but the emergency power was there and working...even though the primary AC power to 10 million was cut off for hours. * We don't have to operate on pre-assigned frequencies, they do Tsk. Ham repeaters "operate on pre-assigned frequencies." :-) Radio amateurs are obliged BY LAW to stay WITHIN their allocated bands. See Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. * We have on-the-air contests (lots of them), they can't "They can't?!?" Why should "they?" Broadcasters have "sweeps" periods...which have more at stake than winning fancy certificates. * We can vary our power from 0 to 2KW, they can't Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya. :-) [Yes, I've heard that "CW gets through when nothing else will" but ham transmitters need SOME kind of electric power... :-) ] * We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."] Post cards from the edge? :-) I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro." * We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency. :-) International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft to change any communications frequency they need over the entire civil aviation band. Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland waterways. [just a few examples] * We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests." :-) * We can build our own equipment, they can't Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio electronics in broadcasting sometime. The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other (non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made than to homebrew. * We operate for the fun of it, they don't First thing you've written that is close to the truth... * We have radio club meetings, they don't WRONG. The very first radio club is the Radio Club of America, incorporated 1909 (five years before the ARRL and before every other local/national radio club here). RCA is still alive and meeting but they've gone away from amateurism. They have a website with lots of informative, historical data there. * We can ragchew for hours, they can't You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you? :-) Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a form of "ragchewing," including the military. * We can operate at will, they can't As long as you don't operate ON Will, it's okay...unless you are an MD. You can operate WITH a Will if you are an attorney. :-) * We go on DXpeditions, they don't Cook and Magellan had amateur radio licenses? Columbus? Vasco de Gama? Hams "discover" the undiscovered country? I don't think so. * We're licensed, you're not WRONG! I have several licenses. :-) I just don't have an amateur radio license. I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to bill you for services. :-) No 73 for you, Jeff KH6O Tsk. No "best regards?" Not even an "88?" :-) Lecture on those numbers, sweetums. Close your classroom door on the way out. Bye.... |
Lenof21 wrote:
In article , (Jeffrey Herman) writes: Len Over 21 wrote: But, in 2004, U.S. radio amateurs MUST still pass a morse test to "qualify" for operating an amateur radio transmitter on HF. No other radio service (other than certain Maritime radio services) require morsemanship testing. Since you opened the door, let's do some further comparisons of the ARS to other services: * We purposely operate using as little power as possible (QRP), they don't Heh heh heh. Crock of something. All one has to do is listen to the HF bands during contests and observe the S-Meter readings. Please, Lennie..tell us all about your SWLing activites on ANY band. Got bored listening to LAX ATIS or AWOS...??? Tsk. The military has built-in "QRP" (equivalent) controls to HF through UHF transceivers and has done so since at least 1989. Not all of them, Lennie. * We have antenna measuring contests with home-built antennas, they don't Most other radio services use already-measured antennas with professional installations plus more measurements after installations. No "contests" needed. "Other radio services" are not interested in improving antenna efficiency. Indeed, many antenna systems are installed with the intent to attenuate radiation in certain patterns! * We conduct emergency comms when other services are down, they're down Another crock. Tsk. You should see some of the urban emergency services' communications facilities, their training plans, listen to their on-air exercises and drills. And Leonard H. Anderson once again makes a really assinine comment in the face of contemporary, independently reported fact to the contrary. Better yet, live through a real, live emergency and see how the entire network can operate with "work-arounds." Case in point: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles where all the public safety and utility companies' were "netted" together to keep things going. The only thing "down" was buildings, poles, etc., but the emergency power was there and working...even though the primary AC power to 10 million was cut off for hours. Here we have Lennie once again retelling his tale of single-handed stay-at-home heroism of an event that happend over a decade ago. Of course it's the ONLY example he has to use. And the really ironic part is that Lennie's the one who's always lambasitng us (Amateurs) for "living in the past", etc. At least it's a bit more "modern" than his tales of Korean War era heroism in a rear area Army radio relay station is the mid fifties. * We don't have to operate on pre-assigned frequencies, they do Tsk. Ham repeaters "operate on pre-assigned frequencies." They are not "assigned", Lennie. Radio amateurs are obliged BY LAW to stay WITHIN their allocated bands. See Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Uh huh. Bands YOU are not authorized to use, I might add! * We have on-the-air contests (lots of them), they can't "They can't?!?" Why should "they?" Broadcasters have "sweeps" periods...which have more at stake than winning fancy certificates. * We can vary our power from 0 to 2KW, they can't Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya. Almost close to a funny, Lennie! [Yes, I've heard that "CW gets through when nothing else will" but ham transmitters need SOME kind of electric power...] * We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."] Post cards from the edge? :-) I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro." * We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency. Uhhhhhh....None of us "own" a frequency. Not even GROL licensed ex-technicians with no station license. International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft to change any communications frequency they need over the entire civil aviation band. Those ARE assigned frequencies. And they may NOT change to ANY frequency over the ENTIRE civil aviation band, Lennie. Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland waterways. [just a few examples] Again...Discreet, assigned frequencies by international convention. * We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests." * We can build our own equipment, they can't Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio electronics in broadcasting sometime. Sorry...broadcast facilities MUST use FCC type accepted gear, Lennie. A REAL "radio professional" would know that. The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other (non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made than to homebrew. "Cheaper" than the FCC fine which would accompany the use of non-type accepted equipment. * We operate for the fun of it, they don't First thing you've written that is close to the truth... * We have radio club meetings, they don't WRONG. The very first radio club is the Radio Club of America, incorporated 1909 (five years before the ARRL and before every other local/national radio club here). RCA is still alive and meeting but they've gone away from amateurism. They have a website with lots of informative, historical data there. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....1909...Pre-dates the ARRL by 6 years...How does this fit in to your rants about US relying on ARRL, Lennie...??? * We can ragchew for hours, they can't You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you? Participants on "talk radio" do it via telephone, not two way radio. Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a form of "ragchewing," including the military. * We can operate at will, they can't As long as you don't operate ON Will, it's okay...unless you are an MD. You can operate WITH a Will if you are an attorney. :-) It's amazing what you will append with a smiley, Lennie. You're really impressed with yourself, aren't you...??? * We go on DXpeditions, they don't Cook and Magellan had amateur radio licenses? Columbus? Vasco de Gama? Hams "discover" the undiscovered country? I don't think so. Sure they have. And before Leonard H. Anderson was old enough to stick his banana-peeler into his diaper and wonder why the pudding tasted so bad. * We're licensed, you're not WRONG! I have several licenses. I just don't have an amateur radio license. That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie. I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to bill you for services. If it's over $1.25, you're ripping folks off. No 73 for you, Jeff KH6O Tsk. No "best regards?" Not even an "88?" :-) Lecture on those numbers, sweetums. Close your classroom door on the way out. Bye.... Be still my heart..could Lennie TRULY be leaving...??? Naaaaaah....No one is THAT lucky! Steve, K4YZ |
Please, make a QSO with 0 KW RF output. I dare ya. Almost close to a funny, Lennie! Wonder if "Echolink" would qualify, but the ham using the computer tied to the internet isn't using the RF spectrum in the usual sense. But that would be 0 KW.... Unless he links to a repeater in some city on teh other side of the world. * We exchange post cards after a QSO, they don't Wow! [a big Ben Stein "wow..."] Post cards from the edge? :-) I know of no non-amateur radio organization who has a "QSL Buro." Some CB or freebanders do exchange cards, though I don't know if they use callbooks or what to get each other's addresses. And not be found by the Funny Cookie Corporation. * We're frequency-agile with a VFO, they aren't Not all of you. A few of you "own" a frequency. International Civil Aviation regulations (also FAA) allow aircraft to change any communications frequency they need over the entire civil aviation band. Those ARE assigned frequencies. And they may NOT change to ANY frequency over the ENTIRE civil aviation band, Lennie. Several HF-using radio services are allowed to change frequencies as needed to continue communications. See ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) as done by government agencies...or the maritime radio services on HF or on VHF in harbor and inland waterways. [just a few examples] Again...Discreet, assigned frequencies by international convention. Even CB sets come with 40 different frequencies the users can select at will. Not VFO though. * We have swapmeets ("ham fests"), they don't Non-ham licensees have NO NEED of "ham fests." SOme CB clubs have flea markets that look a lot like hamfests. * We can build our own equipment, they can't Untrue, even in broadcasting service. Get details on studio electronics in broadcasting sometime. That's not the transmitter. The transmitter and antenna is the only part the FCC cares about, from a technical viewpoint. There's a bunch of other rules about nontechnical aspects, but nothing that much cares about studio equipment. Sorry...broadcast facilities MUST use FCC type accepted gear, Lennie. A REAL "radio professional" would know that. The major reason that there's so little "homebuilding" with other (non-ham) radio services is CO$T. Cheaper to buy ready-made than to homebrew. "Cheaper" than the FCC fine which would accompany the use of non-type accepted equipment. Other services are not likely to build radios when they can buy what they need from off the shelf approved equipment. For a lot less money. For them a radio is a box that does something useful to get something they want done. * We operate for the fun of it, they don't Kids on CB seem to have fun fooling around. Not that that is a feature of that service.... First thing you've written that is close to the truth... * We can ragchew for hours, they can't You don't listen to "Talk Radio" do you? Participants on "talk radio" do it via telephone, not two way radio. Tsk. Almost every radio service (other than broadcasting) has a form of "ragchewing," including the military. I doubt that a police dept would want their cops ragchewing over their radios.... * We're licensed, you're not WRONG! I have several licenses. I just don't have an amateur radio license. 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. I could show you my poetic license ability but then I'd have to bill you for services. If it's over $1.25, you're ripping folks off. I think the DMV revoked his poetic license. :-) |
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." :-) 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. 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. Even then, morse code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio amateurs. The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the morse code test is 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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." That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so. 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. 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. 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. Posted on 17 Jan 05 |
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 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. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com