RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 13th 05, 02:24 AM

wrote:
Mel A. Nomah wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

: So it appears that, in *some* cases (where a renewal
: application was previously filed), a ham with an expired
: license may be able to operate legally in the grace
: period.

After all the indignant and self-righteous heat you've applied to
LenOver on
this issue, it appears you were equally ignorant of the content
of
Part
97.

What "indignant and self-righteous heat"?

The usual.

Len claimed that *all* amateurs with expired licenses could *legally*
continue to operate in the grace period. Nothing about renewals being
filed, etc. I
simply pointed out that he was mistaken on that point - but he won't
admit it.

If a ham with an expired license followed Len's claim and operated
with
an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license without a pending
pre-expiration renewal application, s/he'd be violating Part 97.

By comparison, after it was pointed out to me that the rules allow
continued operation if a renewal is filed, I amended my original
statements.

At what point is anyone else allowed to amend their statements?

If a ham with an expired license followed my claim and did not
operate
with
an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license, there would be no
violation
of Part 97. If the ham had applied for renewal before expiration,
s/he
would
miss out on operating when in fact it would be legal, but that's
erring
on the
side of safety.

Sounds rather punitive.

97.21(a)(3)(ii) puts it this way:

"When the application has been received by the FCC
on or before the license expiration date, the license
operating authority is continued until the final disposition
of the application."

Yes, it does. And that's why I amended my statement.

Is this an admission that you were (gulp) wrong? 8(

It could be argued that what 97.21(a) (3) (ii) says is that if
you renew before the expiration date, the license never really
expires in the first place.

You are welcome to argue it, but please do so from the antenna mount.

Been there in the rules for decades, and is commonly known among
most
people
who are even slightly conversant with Part 97.

So is the fact that hams *cannot* legally operate in the grace period
with an expired license if no renewal application has been filed. But
Len claims *all*
hams can legally operate in the grace period. That's simply not so.
Yet
he
won't admit it.

(gulp)

Len gets very upset when someone like me points out his errors.

There are no others like you. You are unique. You are Miccolis.

Didn't you catch on to this when KV4FZ stayed on the air for years
after
expiration while his renewal was being litigated?

Sure. But he applied for renewal long before the expiration date.

And a renewal was granted on or about the expiration date?

Of course, Herb being an accomplished Morse operator, you'd
probably
cut him
more slack than you cut for LenOver (not that either deserves any).

Not at all - just the opposite.

Hi, hi!

Herb, being a licensed amateur
operator, should
get *less* slack, because he should have known better.

Less slack, more flak.

Just how much flak did you give KV4FZ???

None.

Len's ignorance isn't the problem;

Nor is it Jim's problem.

it's his resistance to accepting his
mistakes and his attacks on those who point them out.

Indeed.

Thanks for clearing up that point about renewals.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mel's swell.