commander buzzard:

.... yawn ...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:53:20 -0700, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands...


Good grief!! So you can tell from listening to the bands how many hams
there are. WOW!! Do you think all 600,000+ licensed operators are on at
the same time? Do you even think all 600,000 are active on the bands?
Which bands to you tune? Do you think you can hear all the stations that
are on 40 meters? Do you think you can hear all the stations that are on
20, 15, 10 meters at any one time? Can you hear all the 2 meter, 440,
and other UHF activity going on all over the country?
Do you think?

As of July 31, 2005

Novice - 27,975 (-43.28%) (-21,354)
Tech/+ - 317,655 (-5.02%) (-16,800)
General - 136,435 (+20.81%) (+23,490)
Advanced - 75,812 (-24.28%) (-24,236)
Extra - 106,900 (+35.74%) (+28,150)

Total All Classes - 664,040

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it
would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations have
all decided to keep CW.

and you WANT the US to keep such company

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
hack

From: b.b. on Aug 5, 4:12 pm

John Smith wrote:

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!"

When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License,
that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said
that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi!
It's always been a barrier.

True for many, Brian...and unworthy of keeping in federal
radio regulations about amateur radio.

Also true is that Jimmie has never refuted that quotation. It
may be that he has come to believe reality? Well, that may be
a bit too much to hope for...

too for

From: "Dee Flint" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 18:16


"John Smith" wrote in message

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN
LIARS!"

It obviously didn't work did it. Not only is the total number of hams far
greater today than then but as a percent of the population we are more
numerous than then.

UNTRUE, Dee. The peak in license numbers happened a few
days longer than TWO YEARS AGO. The number of total U.S.
radio amateur licenses are now over 6 thousand LESS than
they were two years ago.

It simply goes to prove that anyone who wanted to be a
ham could.

Yes, Dee, and you too can become a concert violinist, an
artist-illustrator, a champion athlete, an intellectual
somebody IF YOU WORK REALLY REALLY HARD AT IT...plus one
tiny things: A physical aptitude ability to do that.

bee bop

From: on Aug 5, 3:06 am

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:

What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

Tsk, tsk, no discrimination between Hardware and Wetware MODEMS?
:-)


It's pretty clear you won't believe them.

It should be clear to you that lots of US don't believe YOU!


I also support written tests. There are folks I know who have
repeatedly flunked the written tests - something about "math
trouble" - "never been good with numbers and rote memorization"

WT Docket is NOT about the written test elements.

Please try to stay on track...


ADA is about rights. A ham radio license is a privilege.

"ADA" is the callsign assigned to the Headquarters,
United States Army, Pacific (USARPAC). That callsign
has a proud heritage dating from 1946.


Have you ever asked the VEs for any accomodations?

Are VEs hoteliers? Innkeepers?


If someone buys a rig and sets up an antenna, does that give them the
right to demand a license?

If a tree falls on a florist, will he make a bouquet?


So? Doesn't change the fact that a tool that is with someone always is
the most useful.

Is morse code for sale at Sears? Under the Craftsman label?


I am supporting Morse Code testing. Also written testing. It's not
about you personally.

WT Docket is NOT about the written test elements.

Please try to stay on track...



"A tool that is with someone always is the most useful."

Doesn't fit.

Have you thought of getting a tool that FITS into today's
radio world? No? Got the Time Machine fixed finally?


The point is that you still have to learn stuff you'll probably never
use just to pass the written test.

WT Docket is NOT about the written test elements.

Please try to stay on track...



Often what you write here is very unclear or even incomprehensible.

No problem. Often what YOUR ideas are in here is unclear, OLD,
and incomprehensible to those of us living in REALITY.


old dit

Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying.

No worse than advertising.

wrote:
From: b.b. on Aug 5, 4:12 pm

John Smith wrote:

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!"

When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License,
that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said
that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi!
It's always been a barrier.

True for many, Brian...and unworthy of keeping in federal
radio regulations about amateur radio.

Also true is that Jimmie has never refuted that quotation. It
may be that he has come to believe reality? Well, that may be
a bit too much to hope for...

too for


If code testing is good for people who just want to use voice modes, it
must be doubly good for those who want to use CW.

CW gets through when everything else does.

John Smith wrote:

Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc...

The IRS knows to better accuracy the amount of people
earning W2 income. If they wanted to and allowed to,
they could say that X% of people who paid taxes before
are now unemployed, some out of work for 2 years or more.
And how many people are earning less income than last
year.

Pretty soon I'll be paying income tax again. IE, found
a job commensurate with my education/skills. I start
in 2 weeks. Well, I guess President Bush made good
on his promise to cut my taxes, I paid zero last year.
Though I'd like to have some income....



Ham radio still has another major obstacle than the
code. Antenna restrictions. CCRs and such.

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands...

I doubt that it's any more inflated today than it was decades
before.



Good grief!! So you can tell from listening to the bands how many hams
there are. WOW!! Do you think all 600,000+ licensed operators are on at
the same time?

Only on the frequency I'm trying to snag that rare DX on.. :-)

But to a first order approximation the ratio of people
actually transmitting right now to the total number of
hams would be essentially constant.

the use of the word "proof" is this Newsgroup is shocking


Don't know about this newsgroup, but in math class "proofs"
were things that claimed to verify that some assertion was
in fact true. I never really figured out how proofs actually
worked or why I should care. As proofs never showed on tests.
All the "proof" I ever needed was that some process applied
to a test problem would yield a "correct" answer and I'd
get a decent grade.