Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis"
is more accurate than yours... Consider the following
question/challenge:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis"
is more accurate than yours... Consider the following
question/challenge:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

I Havenot seen one But then I make no claim to have read em all (my
tolerance for crap ran out too fast)

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Indeed if there was one I suspect it would delay the R&O no matter how
of the wall it was

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

BTW I assmue NCI filed coments

Did Carl File under is call (looking for a keyword that will not make
me sort through too much else)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis"
is more accurate than yours... Consider the following
question/challenge:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

I Have not seen one But then I make no claim
to have read em all (my
tolerance for crap ran out too fast)

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Indeed if there was one I suspect it would delay the R&O no matter how
of the wall it was

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Just about 24 hours since I posted my challeneg and nothing
new has been offered up.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:05:19 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


"an_old_friend" wrote in message
roups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis"
is more accurate than yours... Consider the following
question/challenge:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

I Have not seen one But then I make no claim
to have read em all (my
tolerance for crap ran out too fast)

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Indeed if there was one I suspect it would delay the R&O no matter how
of the wall it was

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Just about 24 hours since I posted my challeneg and nothing
new has been offered up.

Please Bll don't hold your breth waiting waiting I like you

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Bill Sohl wrote:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

Yes.

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Why?

Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO.

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Here's one:

While several countries have eliminated code testing
(23 the last time I looked, but you probably have
more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty
who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest
folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels.

Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements
with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling
abroad can get licenses for countries they visit,

Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege
license privileges to foreign hams who are not code
tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs
won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless
they take a code test there.

The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem
neatly.

--

Now a challenge:

In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been
offered?

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Tues, Nov 8 2005 3:59 pm


In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been
offered?

Yes.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

Yes.

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Why?

Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO.

Yet we already know ALL of the old reasons have been
discounted by the FCC.

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Here's one:

While several countries have eliminated code testing
(23 the last time I looked, but you probably have
more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty
who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest
folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels.

Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements
with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling
abroad can get licenses for countries they visit,

Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege
license privileges to foreign hams who are not code
tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs
won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless
they take a code test there.

So you say, but offer not one example of a country
which now does not offer reciprocal licensing
to any of the countries that have already dropped
code.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem
neatly.

Not as I see it.

Now a challenge:

In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been
offered?

No new arguments against retention of code are
needed. The FCC has already accepted them.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
...
Please Bll don't hold your breth waiting waiting I like you

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Meaning you won't take this one to court markie??

Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument
was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any
country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to
amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended
all code testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

Yes.

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Why?

Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO.

Yet we already know ALL of the old reasons have been
discounted by the FCC.

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Here's one:

While several countries have eliminated code testing
(23 the last time I looked, but you probably have
more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty
who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest
folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels.

Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements
with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling
abroad can get licenses for countries they visit,

Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege
license privileges to foreign hams who are not code
tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs
won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless
they take a code test there.

So you say, but offer not one example of a country
which now does not offer reciprocal licensing
to any of the countries that have already dropped
code.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem
neatly.

Not as I see it.

Now a challenge:

In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been
offered?

No new arguments against retention of code are
needed. The FCC has already accepted them.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument
was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any
country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to
amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended
all code testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

any thought on how you will keep this up?

just cruious my own siggestion is 7 days then weekly til the R&O comes
out