L. wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:35 -0400, "L." wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements.............

today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I
know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to
band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is
there, and reconize the frequency is in use

UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good -
the is no need or proper reason if you prefer that wording
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


OK, I'll buy that - but again, until the code {exam} is "ABOLISHED" - we are
"required" to have it for H.F. I WILL agree, once many pass their code
exams, they never see a key or listen to a code tape - again...........

For what it is worth and THIS I've not kept up with - I have heard that
there is a move afoot - by the FCC themselves - to abolish the code
requirement. For some strange reason, September or October of this year
comes to mind. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
indeed that is why many of are here trashing it out one last time

NoCode got real montenum and organzation here t grow in to movement in
part in this very forum

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

L.

On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill manner lout that you can't address me by
name

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name

"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name




Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words.


Sc

slow code wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name




Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words.
well mark certainly isn't one


Sc