| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
November 3rd 05, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 15:01:08 -0800, wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? what majority? Where've you been? Did you miss the news about the hurricanes and Scooter Libby's indictment too? Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology... which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. so what you keep beating that dead horse it smells pretty bad by now Yep, Len's carcass is beginning to stink up the joint after that "Extra right out of the box" comment. They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len? It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. nice to see the ARRL can whip it some of it memebrs into a lather Is it your opinion that the ARRL told its membership what view to take in commenting on the 05-235 issue? and of course your logica is Flawed in suggesting that all Ham favor coded extra oppose Code free general making the No code position clearly the purality What is clear is that you comprehend what Jim wrote. and indeed the coded extra support just shows the foolish ness of the Procode side I know it'll be a stretch, but do you think you could tell us what thought processes took place in your formulation of such a view? if there is any need for code testing at HF it applies to the general as well as the Extras Good idea, Mark. so the Procode side merely shows itself as being for restriction whad enough flushing the restN Let's see if I have this correct: The procode testing side is for restriction whad enough flushing the rest? Can that be what you meant to convey? Dave K8MN |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235 | Policy | |||
| Docket Scorecard | Policy | |||
| Docket 05-235 Scorecard | Policy | |||
| Lennie's Back In Form...Old Rant's...Same Form... | Policy | |||
| Lennie's Double Standard Once Again Revealed...BY Lennie! | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
