wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am
wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations
for 71 years. :-)

That's true ;-)

It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74
years,

Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC.

You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're
trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work.

It was created in 1934.

As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the
reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with:

- cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics

No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto.

Ancient history. ;-)

You have no valid comparison to morse code.

Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code.
Someone who was really interested in a logical argument could point
out that there is no separate skill test for manual transmission skill
anymore.

Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence.

I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission
operation
and Morse Code operation.

You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation,
yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your
own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no
competence."

When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both
had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in
it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic
transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear
changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy
Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic
transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro
(as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual
gear changing.

But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic
transmissions.

Didn't have to know morse code to drive...

But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone
bother to learn it in 2005?

Manual transmission is not favored in many states due to emission
limits, by law, not by the fact that manual transmissions are a
decided inconvenience.

Doesn't answer the question, Len.

Truck-tractors have manual transmissions.

For various reasons.

Most cars equipped with
automatic transmissions can also do manual gear changing; they
just don't have any clutch.

There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch",
however. But that is all beside the point.

- sailboats instead of power boats

Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats...

Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission.

There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order
to pilot a sailing vessel.

Not the point.

Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound-
powered" telecommunications sets.

Actually, I have.

No DC or AC power needed to
operate them. There is no equivalent for telegraphy.

Sure there is - it's called wigwag.

Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago.

Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are
real.

Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces. They
represent
less than 1% of the fleet of those military services.

Morse Code, OTOH, represents much more than 1% of amateur radio
operation.

No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat.

There are almost no commercial uses
for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating,
and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well.

That is an absolute?

Yes - is it not true?

Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft."

Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple
facts.
Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby"
boating?

There are NO commercial uses for morse code skill in the USA
except for the companies selling morse code practice material.

And the companies selling Morse Code equipment.

In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious,
valid, and very clear.

- Drawing and painting instead of photography

No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do.

Still have your crayons, huh?

Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design
in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles.

Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there?

Pasadena forensics
could practice on what was left of you after saying that.

Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a
simple question? Sure looks like it.

When
I went to Art Center it was in the city of Los Angeles, on 3rd
Street, somewhat near CBS City and the Pan-Pacific Auditorium.

Do you still have your crayons, Len?

Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography?

No.

I can
give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My
photographs and illustrations have been published in national
magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and
illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that
isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day
screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints,
brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still
works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system
common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for
painting in preference for the finer linen media.

That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies.
Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer
graphics. Why do you live in the past?

Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or
photography?

By analogy.

- Homemade food instead of packaged

How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-)

Is that where your cooking winds up, Len?

Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow
campers.

I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-)

Try not to "get along so well with others" in your writing.
It looks hostile and argumentative.

Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-)
Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten
others?

Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has
used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series
with the antenna lead... :-)

Why?

It would further prove the efficacy of "morse code efficiency"
to all others.

How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice
effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate
his successes, but they are well documented all the same.

Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in
"engineering?" :-)

What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Electronics is a part of Physics.

No, it isn't. I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college.
None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical
engineering covered electronics.

Part of Electronics is SCIENCE.
What isn't science is technology.

No, it's all part of engineering.

Application of electronic
technology is done in electrical and electronic engineering.

Says who? You? Bwaaahaahaa!

Science is about discovering the laws of nature. Engineering
is about doing practical things.

Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true
electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous)
kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was
simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God,
celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly
thought at the time.

Franklin the scientist determined the nature of
lightning.

But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where
I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree)
didn't stop with just the scientific discovery of
the nature of lightning. He went on to develop the
first systems of lightning protection (commonly
known even today as "lightning rods" to protect
structures. His system was the first practical
electrical device or system, earning him the
honor of being the first Electrical Engineer.

You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s.

Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck
up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len.

You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to
you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You
cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ
other than some casual thing that applies only to others.

Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ"
stood for. You made a mistake.

If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005.
3,795 of them. :-)

So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of
them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one
more has been added in the ECFS.

You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len,
even though the url was given in the filed comments. If you'd
actually read and understood them, you'd know have seen it and
been able to compare it with your own.

There is NO "evidence" at www.ah0a.org

Yes, there is. Each filing is categorized, and a direct, automatic
link provided so that anyone can compare the categorization to
the actual filing documents.

I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments
so accessible.

except in the highly-
biased opinion of a long-time morseman...

How are those results "biased", Len?

How are they any more "biased" than yours, in which you
count multiple filings by the same person as separate
opinions, as long as they are not exactly identical?

Do you think your anticodetest opinion is 10 times more
valid than the procodetest opinion of someone who
simply filed a comment?

one whose Petitions
before the Commission have been DENIED.

Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED,
either in whole or in part:

NCI's petition to have a "sunset" clause on Morse Code testing was
DENIED

NCI and NCVEC's petitions to simply dump Element 1 by Memorandum
Report and Order, and to avoid the whole NPRM cycle, were both DENIED

ARRL and NCI's petitions to give free upgrades to over 300,000 amateurs
were DENIED

NCVEC's petition to create a new "Communicator" license class was
DENIED.

And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age
requirement for
an amateur radio license was DENIED.

Have you *ever* filed a real petition with FCC, Len? One that got an RM
number,
drew comments, etc.? I think not.

When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone
proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's
basic logic.

No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-)

In your illogical mind, I suppose.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine. I
will not stop writing facts and truth just because they bother you.

Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an
amateur radio station.

Your amateur radio operator's license does NOT "qualify" you
to operate any commercial radio station, radionavigation
station, space-communications station, radiosonde station,
radar of any kind, television transmitter, aircraft
transmitter, maritime vessel transmitter, land mobile radio
service transmitter, or microwave radio relay station.

Never said it did.

Mine does.

Do you own any of those?

Legally, you are the same as a person
with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur
radio station.

Do you wish to take me to civil court? Federal court?

If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station
illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job,
not mine.

Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license

(that's good)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified."

Incorrect again!

You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and
AUTHORIZED.

Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an
amateur radio station.

FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate
an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify
those who are qualified.

Wrong.

No, it's exactly right. Those whom the FCC considers qualified are
issued licenses. FCC does not consider any unlicensed person to
be qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC issues licenses as part of their overall civil
radio regulatory task.

FCC only issues licenses to those who demonstrate that they are
qualified. The licenses can be revoked if the licensee demonstrates
that they are not qualified.

All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are
considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither
qualified nor authorized.

The FCC was never chartered by LAW to be an academic or skill-
achievement agency. They AUTHORIZE license holders to operate
and transmit RF energy according to the regulations pertaining
to the type and kind of radio service they are AUTHORIZED in.

You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio
station, Len. FCC says so.

FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC has "said" no such thing to me.

Yes, they have.

They've never once
written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything...

They don't have to, Len. The regulations clearly define what an
amateur radio station is, and what license is required to operate
one. You don't have the required license, so by definition you
are not qualified - and not authorized - to operate an amateur
radio station.

The license is the qualification.

It is an AUTHORIZATION. It is a PERMISSION. It is a GRANT.

You have none of those.

By definition. FCC says you're
not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

No, I am not permitted - by regulation - to transmit RF energy
exceeding incidental RF radiation limits on allocated amateur-
only frequencies without possessing an amateur radio license
grant.

True, but incomplete.

By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed
to operate an amateur radio station.

The military of the United States and the federal government of
the United States (other than the FCC) have QUALIFIED me to
operate radio transmitters according to military/government
regulations. Experience in actual successful transmission of
RF energy has furthered that qualification.

None of which extends to amateur radio stations. You are not
authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur
radio station.

Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio
station, Len?

I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI
together.

Prove it.

Go to the FCC Reading Room and look up correspondence to them
prior to the earliest ECFS-available date. That is an un-
alterable third-party reference.

What date should I look for?

I did not keep ALL correspondence I've done in the last four
decades.

So you have no proof.

I cannot digitize and present what I no longer have.
The FCC Reading Room keeps records intact, archived.

And what date are you claiming?

You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it
again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that
license.

Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it
once.

More hostility and combativeness. Tsk, NOT "getting along with
others" on your part.

I'm just telling you the facts.

I have never taken any amateur radio license test, therefore I
neither "passed" nor "failed" it. That only proves the PAST.

You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway.

You stated what I allegedly "could not do" in the future.
You are not prescient, cannot tell the future. Ergo, your
remark is simply one of hostility and combatativeness.

No, I simply point out what you can't do *now*....

Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len.

Sorry, it IS hostile when you presume your opinion to be an
absolute. It is only your opinion. You frequently try to make
your opinions as absolutes. That is wrong.

Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example.

Also consider how many times you have stated your opinions as
facts, then had them shown to be unsupported by facts.

Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and
listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands....

Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced.

Really? ;-)

First, I was
not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day
holiday weekend.

But you could have been...

Second, I've already "turned on and listened"
to all parts of the MF and HF spectrum...many times...even
looked at it with a spectrum analyzer.

But you avoid those parts where Morse Code can most likely
be found, right?

At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't
have one.

How do you know, Len?

You've never served in the armed forces of the United States.

How do you know?

Had you done so, you would have received a DD-214 as a release
from active duty. You've said you did not serve,

When?

I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not
mean I never served.

There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here.
That really seems to bother you.

"It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-)

I know what they are, Len.

Incorrect again. All you "know" is what I've written in here.
I've not written about all of my "interests" or "what I've
done" or "what I do."

You've written such long diatribes about your activities that
it's hard not to know, Len.

Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those
subjects.

"Near-complete ignorance?!?"

Yes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, Len.

That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model.

"Hardly a good role model?!?"

Yep.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

Do you think others should act like you, Len? Do you think you're
a good role model of professional - or amateur - behavior?

Or are you one of those who think that others should do as you
say, not as you do?