From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 16, 4:47 pm

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

See what we mean? He just can't stay on subject. Always brings in Morse
code "Morsemen", same same all the time. Then he gets into his
"Military career". Predictable as a Sun set.

Right, so what is the point, eh?

I can't think of a one actually Mike.

Little pointy heads aren't good for thinking.

wrote:
I can't think of a one actually Mike.


Little pointy heads aren't good for thinking.





Speaking from personal experience again I see.

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am

an_old_friend wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm


More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser. plonk

Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy
getting boring

As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply
can't stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one
track mind of anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired
quickly. So I have decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a
serious discussion in this group, since he is not a member of the
society. Dig it?

Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value

Boring Dan Boring

He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I
don't
regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really
concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of
Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs.

All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and
not very interesting, at least to me.

Poor baby. "Sore loser-ism" displayed for all to see. :-)

The whines have been pressed from grapes of morsemen's wrath!

I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant
attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing.

"Non sequitur." [from the Latin]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Coslo wishes to be "correct" in any discussion
or argument? Not possible in an OPEN forum when his discussions
and arguments are NOT winning/correct/valid or on the subject of
amateur radio.

Note: There exist OTHER forums for discussion of religion and
general moral-ethical behavior. Those do not involve amateur
radio per se, though, so it is best NOT to whine and carry on
about losing discussions and arguments by spouting "you hate
hams!"

Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams.

Incorrect. By so stating an incorrect falsehood, you create,
in effect, a mild sort of character assassination which is not
at all civil or mannerly.

If you cannot stand to have your statements rebutted, talked
against, or shown to be invalid or incorrect, then you have NO
validity in engaging in uncivil character assassination by
hurling falsehoods or even personal insults.

That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna.

This newsgroup was NOT created to "like Michael Coslo" or to
discuss various forms of comestible fish or meat.

If you cannot stand the heat of debate or strong discussion,
this newsgroup is NOT for you.

So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it.

Yet you engage in uncivil character assassination, being the
hypocrite to your statement of saying "no point to it."

Obviously you HAVE a "point." That is to personally insult
those who disagree with you, such as saying "I hate hams!"
I do not. Disagreement with you or anyone else on amateur
radio policy is NOT "hating hams." Disagreement with certain
policies expressed by the ARRL is NOT "hating hams."

You seem to forget (conveniently) that I've been IN radio and
electronics for a long time, first as a hobbyist, then as a
radio operator and maintainer in the United States military.
That military experience was enlightening and interesting
enough to me to change my working career goal from industrial
illustration to electronics engineering. That became my
career and I've retired from regular hours at that. Radio
and electronics hobby interests continue with me still,
begun in 1947 and still with me 58 years later.

Not having as much exposure to other forms of radio
communication, certainly not for as long as I, you consider
"radio" as being ONLY that which you are familiar with:
Amateur radio, CB, cellular telephony. RADIO is far larger
than that. Amateur radio is a small subset of the larger
world of ALL radio communication. Radio amateurs can
benefit by learning more about other forms of radio
communication since all the physical principles are the
same. You get bogged down on expressing your views almost
entirely from the standards and practices of amateur radio
as you know it. That is short-sighted and detrimental to
overall policy - the adminstrative regulations imposed by
authority of government law.

At present, in terms of amateur radio policy, there is only
ONE MAJOR topic before the Federal Communications Commission:
NPRM 05-143 on the elimination or retention of the morse code
test. Elimination of the morse code test threatens the
traditional, mind-conditioned "soul" of many radio amateurs.
Elimination of the code test will prove to be of much larger
impact on the future of United States amateur radio than
did the "restructuring" of mid-2000. That impact will be
far longer than dozens of future hurricane disasters, far
more reaching than some creation of "classes" of licenses
that give status and prestige to certain radio amateurs. It
spells "the end of ham radio" to some who are unable to
change, unable to accept anything but their own comfortable
fantasy of the "amateur community." That traditionalists
refuse to recognize change is not my problem, not a
requirement that I toady to those self-professed "experts of
radio" by giving gratuitous praise on their mighty self-
stated accomplishments. CHANGE has happened to ALL OTHER
radio services. No God has divined that amateur radio
refuse to change nor has the Divine Being blessed all those
of "higher" classes wisdom and judgement because they've
met older artificial standards imposed by older amateurs.

In my career work I've seen tremendous change in as many
forms of electronics and radio as I've been fortunate to
experience (a great deal many). Nowhere have I experienced
as hidebound and stubborn refusal of so many to accept
change in amateur radio...and to blatantly insult the person
of those seeking change, seeking modernization. Some in
amateur radio seem to be the living embodiment of ultra-uber-
conservatism. For an avocational activity that is NOT vital
to the nation. Amateur radio is basically a hobby, a
personal activity involving radio, a fun recreation but one
that requires federal regulation due to the physical nature
of electromagnetic radiation. If you think that amateur
radio is "more" than that, you are mistaken and are living
in an idealized but fantasy concept of an avocational
pursuit. Not my problem. It is yours. It is Jeswald's.
It is all those who think they "own" amateur radio as it
is now.





I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he
hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that.

I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue,
more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio
classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory
tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want
to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's
absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for
Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue.

If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be,
s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion
in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is
as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a
major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing
the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the
theory easier).

Michael Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
groups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm

More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser.
plonk

Dan/W4NTI

Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting
boring


As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't
stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of
anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have
decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this
group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it?


Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value

Boring Dan Boring


He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't
regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really
concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of
Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs.

What point? that people should be censored?

All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very
interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name
calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing.

realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose,
sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the
hallamrk Jim, N2EY

Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams,
me, or chunk light tuna.

No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of
the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to
themselves, and then to the rest of us

So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:30:30 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote in
.net:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:37:59 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote in
.net:



Frank Gilliland wrote:


Then, when it's
all over, we'll all look back and see who really deserves
recognition for their contribution. And it won't be you, Dan.

Don't give a rip. If I wanted some kind of a "reward" I would be a
politician. I'm a worker bee, and a trained and experienced one at
that.


You are also a braggart.


How bout you? What training and Experience do you bring to ECOM?


More than you.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,
000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

First place I'm not talking to you.


That's funny, I could have sworn my name is the same as to whom you
replied above (or don't you know how to count the little arrows at the
begging of each quoted line?).


Second place....if you have so much training....when do you plan to use
it?


I already have.


Now I'm talking to you....Mr. Un-identified poster.


LOL!!! So my DD-214 wasn't enough..... you want I should scan my
driver's license, too?


What the crap are you talking about? I've NEVER seen a DD-214 from you
or anyone else on this newsgroup. You must be thinking of the library
where you rant with the young boys.

Dan/W4NTI

Which library danny? Me and your butty Commander
Cornhole are so there!
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
" wrote in
ups.com:


From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am


an_old_friend wrote:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote in message

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

wrote in message

From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm


More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser. plonk

Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy
getting boring

As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply
can't stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one
track mind of anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired
quickly. So I have decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a
serious discussion in this group, since he is not a member of the
society. Dig it?

Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value

Boring Dan Boring

He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I
don't
regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really
concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of
Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs.

All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and
not very interesting, at least to me.

Poor baby. "Sore loser-ism" displayed for all to see. :-)

The whines have been pressed from grapes of morsemen's wrath!


I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant
attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing.

"Non sequitur." [from the Latin]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Coslo wishes to be "correct" in any discussion
or argument? Not possible in an OPEN forum when his discussions
and arguments are NOT winning/correct/valid or on the subject of
amateur radio.

Note: There exist OTHER forums for discussion of religion and
general moral-ethical behavior. Those do not involve amateur
radio per se, though, so it is best NOT to whine and carry on
about losing discussions and arguments by spouting "you hate
hams!"


Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams.

Incorrect. By so stating an incorrect falsehood, you create,
in effect, a mild sort of character assassination which is not
at all civil or mannerly.

If you cannot stand to have your statements rebutted, talked
against, or shown to be invalid or incorrect, then you have NO
validity in engaging in uncivil character assassination by
hurling falsehoods or even personal insults.


That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna.

This newsgroup was NOT created to "like Michael Coslo" or to
discuss various forms of comestible fish or meat.

If you cannot stand the heat of debate or strong discussion,
this newsgroup is NOT for you.


So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it.

Yet you engage in uncivil character assassination, being the
hypocrite to your statement of saying "no point to it."

Obviously you HAVE a "point." That is to personally insult
those who disagree with you, such as saying "I hate hams!"
I do not. Disagreement with you or anyone else on amateur
radio policy is NOT "hating hams." Disagreement with certain
policies expressed by the ARRL is NOT "hating hams."

You seem to forget (conveniently) that I've been IN radio and
electronics for a long time, first as a hobbyist, then as a
radio operator and maintainer in the United States military.
That military experience was enlightening and interesting
enough to me to change my working career goal from industrial
illustration to electronics engineering. That became my
career and I've retired from regular hours at that. Radio
and electronics hobby interests continue with me still,
begun in 1947 and still with me 58 years later.

Not having as much exposure to other forms of radio
communication, certainly not for as long as I, you consider
"radio" as being ONLY that which you are familiar with:
Amateur radio, CB, cellular telephony. RADIO is far larger
than that. Amateur radio is a small subset of the larger
world of ALL radio communication. Radio amateurs can
benefit by learning more about other forms of radio
communication since all the physical principles are the
same. You get bogged down on expressing your views almost
entirely from the standards and practices of amateur radio
as you know it. That is short-sighted and detrimental to
overall policy - the adminstrative regulations imposed by
authority of government law.

At present, in terms of amateur radio policy, there is only
ONE MAJOR topic before the Federal Communications Commission:
NPRM 05-143 on the elimination or retention of the morse code
test. Elimination of the morse code test threatens the
traditional, mind-conditioned "soul" of many radio amateurs.
Elimination of the code test will prove to be of much larger
impact on the future of United States amateur radio than
did the "restructuring" of mid-2000. That impact will be
far longer than dozens of future hurricane disasters, far
more reaching than some creation of "classes" of licenses
that give status and prestige to certain radio amateurs. It
spells "the end of ham radio" to some who are unable to
change, unable to accept anything but their own comfortable
fantasy of the "amateur community." That traditionalists
refuse to recognize change is not my problem, not a
requirement that I toady to those self-professed "experts of
radio" by giving gratuitous praise on their mighty self-
stated accomplishments. CHANGE has happened to ALL OTHER
radio services. No God has divined that amateur radio
refuse to change nor has the Divine Being blessed all those
of "higher" classes wisdom and judgement because they've
met older artificial standards imposed by older amateurs.

In my career work I've seen tremendous change in as many
forms of electronics and radio as I've been fortunate to
experience (a great deal many). Nowhere have I experienced
as hidebound and stubborn refusal of so many to accept
change in amateur radio...and to blatantly insult the person
of those seeking change, seeking modernization. Some in
amateur radio seem to be the living embodiment of ultra-uber-
conservatism. For an avocational activity that is NOT vital
to the nation. Amateur radio is basically a hobby, a
personal activity involving radio, a fun recreation but one
that requires federal regulation due to the physical nature
of electromagnetic radiation. If you think that amateur
radio is "more" than that, you are mistaken and are living
in an idealized but fantasy concept of an avocational
pursuit. Not my problem. It is yours. It is Jeswald's.
It is all those who think they "own" amateur radio as it
is now.






I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he
hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that.

Your opinion. I have read enough of his posts to come to a different
conclusion.

I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue,
more important than any restructuring, etc.

So What? Does every post have to be about Morse code testing?

If I make a post about something else, and he turns it to Morse code
testing, does that mean I am *required* to reply?

So far, he has called me a "poor baby", a "sore loser", and as having a
drinking problem. He accuses me of character assassination and more than
I care to look up at this time. And if I care to point it out, I am
guaranteed another poor baby thing. He calls many people Nazis, or
other derisive terms. All because they have the unmitigated gall to
disagree with him.

What exactly have I done to him? He is here having his brand of good
time. I am here having my brand of fun. They are apparently rather
exclusive.

Do you approve of such activity Alun? Is that a good way to act? Even
if Mr Anderson is 100 percent correct, Is that an excuse for his "style".


And you can tell him that I do like good strong discussion and debate.
It has to be good though.

Tell me Alun, how long do you think his "style" of discussion would
stand up in a real debate?

- Mike KB3EIA -

an_old_friend wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:


"an_old_friend" wrote in message
legroups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:


wrote in message
glegroups.com...
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm

More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser.
plonk

Dan/W4NTI

Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting
boring


As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't
stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of
anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have
decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this
group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it?


Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value

Boring Dan Boring


He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't
regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really
concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of
Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs.


What point? that people should be censored?

Censored? Who said that?


My point is that I don't have to reply. I really don't. He can post all
he wants, and I read it, and reply or not as is my wish.

Do you think I have to reply to him, Mark? Is my ignoring the vast
majority of his postings some sort of censorship?


All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very
interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name
calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing.


realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose,
sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the
hallamrk Jim, N2EY

Better go back and read them posts, Mark.


Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams,
me, or chunk light tuna.


No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of
the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to
themselves, and then to the rest of us

Your opinion, Mark. My opinion is otherwise.



So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it.

No point at all.

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:


"an_old_friend" wrote in message
legroups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:


wrote in message
glegroups.com...
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm

More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser.
plonk

Dan/W4NTI

Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting
boring


As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't
stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of
anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have
decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this
group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it?


Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value

Boring Dan Boring


He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't
regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really
concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of
Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs.


What point? that people should be censored?

Censored? Who said that?
Dan

All dan posts in reply is demands for credentcail and that anyone
without credentcails he apporoves should not post


My point is that I don't have to reply. I really don't. He can post all
he wants, and I read it, and reply or not as is my wish.

Do you think I have to reply to him, Mark? Is my ignoring the vast
majority of his postings some sort of censorship?never said anything of the sort


All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very
interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name
calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing.


realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose,
sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the
hallamrk Jim, N2EY

Better go back and read them posts, Mark.

I have read em


Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams,
me, or chunk light tuna.


No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of
the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to
themselves, and then to the rest of us

Your opinion, Mark. My opinion is otherwise.



So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it.

No point at all.

From: an_old_friend on Sep 17, 8:38 am

Michael Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm


He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't
regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really
concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of
Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs.

What point? that people should be censored?

Coslo wants a cozy little chatroom with all in general agreement
with him. As he's written before, he wants to be entertained.

When he can't come up with valid replies on the SUBJECT, he
resorts to personal insults such as "ham hating." Tsk, tsk.

Coslo falls into too much self-identification of himself as
"ham radio." Be opposed to Coslo's opinion and (in his view)
one is "hating ham radio." The same with Jeswald, Heil, and
Miccolis.

All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very
interesting, at least to me. I don't need the non-sequitars, the name
calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing.

realy I don't see that. Len does certainly get rather verbose,
sometimes to point of undermining his his point but that is also the
hallamrk Jim, N2EY

Consider what I write in here as a "first draft." It isn't
polished to someone's perfection but then I'm NOT getting paid
anything to post. It isn't worth my time to sit and rewrite
to publishing standards, not to my wallet, not to my ego.
It is, in effect, flow-of-consciousness CONVERSATION with
unseen beings somehwere in netland. :-)

Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. That is okay, no one has to like Hams,
me, or chunk light tuna.

No Len doesn't hate hams, he does hate that fairly visible segment of
the ham world that is very inflexible and frankly are dishonest to
themselves, and then to the rest of us

I don't hate hams and I rather like tuna/albacore, but only if
packed in water, not oil. :-)

Coslo got ****ed off again and used an old, old computer-modem
ploy of winning message points by repeating untruths of his
opponents...instead of concentrating on the SUBJECT under
discussion. That ploy is sometimes effective to "win friends"
(to his viewpoint) but is just egregious. It is well-known to
those of us having done computer-modem communications a long time.

So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it.

Coslo expects cheers, applause, and respect because he exists?

Things don't work out that way on contentious, highly-polarized
subject discussions. One has to be TOUGH to take some of the
personal insults tossed out by others. [I've survived 21 years
of that] It's very, very easy to toss those egregious personal
insults right back at them. I could send a series of postings
that have nothing else but "COSLO *HATES* NO-CODERS" in them.
That's quick, easy. Some of the Coders in here would cheer and
applaud, thanking me for my "insight." :-)

But, that wastes time and memory space on servers, and is petty,
so I won't do it. :-)

It's okay for Coslo to say I "hate ham radio." Or Jeswald. Or
Heil. Or Miccolis. Or Robeson. They've already done that.
I know, and others know, it isn't true. But, They are ham
radio so any disagreement with them is taken as a "mass insult"
on hundreds of thousands of hams!

To paraphrase Percy Bysshe Shelley: "Look upon his words, ye
mighty, and despair!"*

* From the poem "Ozymandias" but title could be paraphrased as
"Ozy-ham-dias," king of kings. :-)

From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am

" wrote in
From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am
an_old_friend wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm


I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he
hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that.

Alun, all those character-assassination statements of "hating hams"
are just that, character-assassination attempts.

Morsemanship - as a "requirement" for amateur radio licensing
has evolved to a high fantasy art, typified by the pseudo-
arithmetic of: HamRadio = MorseCode.

Put another way: "ARS" = Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Those radio amateurs who fancy themselves good at radiotelegraphy
are incensed at such comparisons. They wish the ARS to be in
Their Image. [it's as simple as that] Hence the character
assassination attempts when they are challenged.

I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue,
more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio
classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory
tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want
to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's
absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for
Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue.

Some radio amateurs who are NOT in the radio-electronics industry
keep insisting that "amateur radio was their first stepping-stone
into a radio-electronics working career." That's quite untrue.

All of electronics (radio is a subset within that) is
fascinating in and of itself to those who chose to work within
it. For the vast majority of workers IN the electronics-radio
industry, they did NOT "begin" as licensed radio amateurs. Hams
who are IN the industry try to say contrary but they are just
speaking of themselves, failing to look around at all the others
around them who did not "get ham licenses first."

Some of the incensed have already replied with "case histories"
from their own work, naming callsigns, hollering "see?! see?!"
That's a very restrictive "example" since they've not gone
beyond a very small bound of their own experience. The IEEE
world membership exceeds a quarter million and non-IEEE workers
are in the millions worldwide. Articles in the trade press
(over a dozen free-subscription monthlies) do not mention morse
code as having any significance. If morse code is mentioned at
all it is in a historical context or as a bit of wry humor.

What too many United States radio amateurs are stuck with is a
kind of conditioned thinking (i.e., "brainwashing") by a singular
publishing house cum membership organization that over-emphasizes
morse code and morsemanship as positive attributes for a hobby.
The League has lobbied for, and gotten, high-rate morsemanship
as a prerequisite for "advanced" (status/rank/privilege) class
licensing...and just never gave up on that until after WRC-03.
The League's core membership and BoD are still of that
generation and are stuck in their ways. They can't change.

As Cecil Moore used to write in here, "If all you've got is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail." :-)

If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be,
s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion
in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is
as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a
major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing
the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the
theory easier).

Astute observation. I agree with most of that.

I will disagree only with the "what if" of 1993 and any
possibility of S25 being changed in any radical way. The IARU
had not yet been turned around on their collective code test
opinion, their member organizations still fixated on standards
and practices of their leaders' youth and formative years.
However, the no-code-test movement had already been started a
decade before that, albeit small, ineffectual in the beginning
but growing in intensity as time went on.

Judging by all the past reports of WARCs and WRCs, the IARU was
more influential with the ITU than what the ARRL pretended to be.
The IARU was also embroiled in a number of problems such as the
40m amateur v. SWBC allocations that was SUPPOSED to have been
addressed at WARC-79. It was put off...and put off...until
finally, after 24 years it achieved a solution at WRC-03...which
won't be fully implemented until a few years from now.

In the United States the ARRL still hasn't fully understood that
the 1991 opening up of the no-code-test Technician class license
added over 200 thousand NEW radio amateurs to the amateur
database. If that had not happened, the United States hams would
have SHRUNK in overall numbers in today's database...even though
the overall population is continuing to increase. As it is, the
number of amateur licensees here have been virtually stagnant for
over two years, NOT growing and decreasing a miniscule amount
since the 2003 peak period. The trend is THERE. The licensees
keeping the numbers up are the newcomers arriving via the no-
code-test Tech class. Unrenewed license attrition is greater.

The enormous worldwide growth of the Internet and availability of
personal computers has stolen MUCH of the "magic" out of the
"shortwave radio" mystique. That can't be regained by insisting
on the alleged "necessity" to learn and test for radio-
telegraphy...for a hobby. Morse code won't defeat terrorists or
save lives or be the First Responder on the scene of disasters.

Radio - by itself - still has tremendous fascination to many. It
may be that elimination of the code test will produce some
increase. Certainly, judging from Comments of WT Docket 05-235,
there will be a surge of "upgraders" to "higher" classes. That
does little to the overall license totals. The PC and Internet
is the Great Challenge to amateur radio for 24/7 personal
communications...almost gargantuan competition, already dwarfing
other competitors. The number of Comments on Docket 05-235,
after only two months, are GREATER than the total number of
Comments on "restructuring" (WT Docket 98-143) for all of 1998!
Most filings on 05-235 are done electronically. Over on
www.qrz.com, the electronic comments on code testing are greater
than four times the filings on 05-235 (I stopped reading them a
couple weeks ago...too many). We are IN the electronic digital
age NOW.

I'll go out on a limb and say that, should code testing be
abolished for amateur radio, the license totals might jump to
20% more than current numbers and then level off. Assumption
only, more of a guess than anything. The sky will fall on
the old amateur morsemen, the "world as they know it" will be
a total disaster zone with bitter, angry recriminations
abounding. They will ignore all the years, the decades of
themselves parading proudly as Champions of Radio and
sneering, snarling at no-coders.