K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:
For example, the maximum power an amateur station may use in
the USA is 1500 W peak output. Why 1500 W - why not 1000 W,
or 2000 W, or something else? Why not any power level that an
amateur can put on the air and still meet RF exposure and spurious
emission rules?
Why are you telling us this, and not the FCC?
He wasn't "telling" anything...
I see it differently.
They are interrogatives...Questions...Preceeded with "Why" and
eneded with a question mark.
So why are you nuts?
There's always the possibility that some new idea, argument, or
information will result from a discussion. Even the passage of time
gives new insights.
Ther's not if you continually avoid such discussions.
So far, only you and Lennie are avoiding anything...
We're avoiding your incessant explanations of your claims of seven (7)
hostile actions.
Hi! (inside joke)
For example, the 2000 restructuring that reduced both code and
written testing did not result in sustained growth of the number
of US hams. We saw a small rise for a few years, but since April 2003
or so the numbers have been in a slow decline. This data clearly
indicates that the license test requirements aren't the
limiting factor to longterm growth.
Were the sunspots in decline during this period?
Does it matter?
Why wouldn't it?
I don't remember the FCC making a point of sunspot numbers in
licensing requirements other than discussing propagation
characteristics.
Hint: they're making a point of it.
Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to
live with the consequences good or bad.
Yep. But until they do, we can refine and develop our
arguments on both sides.
Showing disdain for Technicians who cannot or choose not to learn The
Code certainly tells a lot.
How did you get "disdain" from that...?!?!
Other posts. You find them. Best of Luck.
As for it being unhealthy to discuss, I'd say that as long as
the discussion remains at a civil level, without misquotes and
personal attacks, it's healthy.
Don't worry, be healthy.
Good advice, Brian.
Good advice for you, too. That's why I gave it.
Are you going to take it, or are you about to take us on yet
another "...'they' chased all the Techs away.." story..?!?!
The attitudes of Dee, Dan, and Dave certainly give insight into such
stories.
If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new
hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX
stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more
than they are now.
That's one big reason we have subbands-by-mode.
Wow, I never realized that. We have subbands-by-mode so that DX can
hide from us.
You, as usual, missed the point, Brian.
That was precisely the point that N2EY made. What part of it didn't
you understand?
Many of the "dx" operators do NOT have the means by which to
obtain megabucks multimode/digital Amateur facilities.
How can they "hide down on CW EVEN MORE THAN THEY ARE NOW"
possible if they don't now have other modes available???
Idiot!
And I don't recall David Heil K8MN as RARE DX hiding "down on CW in
downtown Dar El Salaam" to avoid calls on SSB from out-of-band
Frenchmen on 6 Meters!!! He went for it!!!
Jim is right. Civil discourse leads to new insights on arbitrarines
and prejudices.
Where did he say that, Brian...?!?!
A quote, please, or is this yet another "I said it but I really
didn't say it" dance?
"Jim said it but really didn't say it"
If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators
than the
rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the
NCTAs imply
they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room.
Or the data modes.
No CW skill required for that.
No CW skills required for that. And why would we "exclude" Japan?
On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact
will be
insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have
been, then there
is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have
little to no
noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing.
That's true. But there are other factors:
- Reducing the license requirements still further may have negative
effects.
As it already has, right?
The "requirements" (ie required knowledge) for an Amateur license
are as steep as they've ever been...But when there's no real incentive
to LEARN the material, of what use is it...?!?!
So make it even steeper. Make them bleed.
- If there's no real effect, the solution obviously lies elsewhere. But
some may not want to accept that fact.
There may be a number of problems which must be addressed by a number
of solutions.
- Once the requirements are reduced, it may be near-impossible
to get them raised back up.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Arbitrariness should be easy enough to increase. That's what makes it
arbitrary.
In some other universe that made sense...But here...well, it just
doesn't work.
Obviously, you don't understand the concept of arbitrariness.
N2EY has it down to an Art!
And you have it down to a dumb shrug and a question mark!
Let's face it square on. You're just N2EY's unwitting, unintelligent
little hatchet man.
Steve, K4YZ