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?

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

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.

That would make Len "unbiased."

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?

That there is a God?

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.

Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group.

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.

Where did your numbers come from?

A few days ago, you wrote:

"3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S.
amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from
the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson

But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of
those who commented want at least some code testing. That
majority is almost identical to those supporting more than
one code test speed back in 1998.

Show your work.

Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago:

"That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and
accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson

A perfect lead-in to the following:

Must be wonderful to exist in such deep
delusions of grandeur,
very satisfying, off in a wonderland of
their own fantasies
of self-importance and Greatness. shrug

It's interesting that you will go on and on and on
about the motivations of people you've never met,
but you won't tell us *your* motivations for
changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Which is a radio service you are not involved in.

Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in"
amateur radio.

wrote:
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?

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

That's not what I said.

I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the
Morse exam.

I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class
license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is
most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some
proficiency in Morse Code.

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.

That would make Len "unbiased."

No, it would not.

It VERY heavily predisposes Lennie to a specific view.

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?

That there is a God

Is there? Really?

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.

Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group.

Such as?

Seems everyone here, myself included, have expressed many different
ideas on a great many issues.

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.

Where did your numbers come from?

The FCC via Lennie's previous posts.

Why?

A few days ago, you wrote:

"3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S.
amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from
the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson

But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of
those who commented want at least some code testing. That
majority is almost identical to those supporting more than
one code test speed back in 1998.

Show your work.

It's LENNIE'S Work, Brain...The number are fluid, of course, but
as of his last compilation, those numbers still come pretty close.

Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago:

"That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and
accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson

A perfect lead-in to the following:

Must be wonderful to exist in such deep
delusions of grandeur,
very satisfying, off in a wonderland of
their own fantasies
of self-importance and Greatness. shrug

It's interesting that you will go on and on and on
about the motivations of people you've never met,
but you won't tell us *your* motivations for
changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Which is a radio service you are not involved in.

Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in"
amateur radio.

No...A FEW people are.

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

[snip]

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

That's not what I said.

I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the
Morse exam.

I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class
license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is
most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some
proficiency in Morse Code.


I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. There
are two ways to get people to learn it. One, which is what we have now, is
to tie the most desired privilege (HF voice) to the subject that they least
desire to study. However there is a second way. Allow the novices and
techs CW privileges only on the General HF bands without any further
testing. They can have HF voice, digital, etc at any time they then pass
the whatever the test will be in the future for General. This gives them a
taste of HF. I would happily work them as slow as they want to go in order
to encourage the use of CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

Thanks a lot

From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are special. But when all become special, none are.

They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...



They were born 100 years too late.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.


There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on
my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to
comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to
my opinion just like any one else.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.


Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there,
was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts. I
am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups
standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed.
However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was
discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to
distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long
ago.

I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt
his statements. Investigate for yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: on Sun, Nov 6 2005 8:46 am


wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16
Dee Flint wrote:

I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.

There is. They are "superior" to ordinary mortals through
morsemanship.


Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.

Dee is ANGRY that I challenged her on emergency comms via the
"First Responder" comment. [horrors...!]

Ya notice that *NO* PCTA has ever come back on that challenge
about the REAL emergency/crisis/disaster comms people and
what THEY choose? :-)


But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are special. But when all become special, none are.

Logically true. :-)

RCA sub-division Commercial Aviation Electronics had a sales
phrase "Primus inter Pares" (First Among Equals) in '74. :-)

Weird sort of paradox in Latin, no less! RCA overgovernment
told them to stop its use after some months. Too many
potential customers knew Latin and remarked on it...without
buying enough equipment. :-)

Neat, almost self-defining paradox thing: First Among Equals!


They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...



They were born 100 years too late.

Well, maybe 50 years. :-)

In 1935 code was king. 70 years later the throne is white
and located in the bathroom?

[watch this space for OUTRAGE by the PCTA...:-)]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..
(SNIP)
Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the
basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..
(SNIP)
Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio.

That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the
basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I have no problem with that. In each case, we have both identified that as
being our personal opinions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE