RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 16th 05, 02:10 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio
license. You haven't taken the first step on that path.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single
step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose.

Later on you will contradict yourself, but that is par for
your course.

I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago.
First Class, one test, no repeats necessary.

Of course, Len. You've told us that ancient-history story many times.

But as I stated befo The path under discussion is the path to
an *amateur radio* license. You have not taken the first step on
the path to an *amateur radio* license, Len.

That's a fact.

And I don't think you ever will.

WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license?

WHO ever said it was required, Len? Not me. It's not
required at all.

However, it seems very strange that you're so worked up
over requirements for a license you don't seem to have any
intention of ever getting (except for that Extra out of the box"
outburst) and haven't taken the first step to get.

Remember those meetings before your local zoning commission
about the proposed change from R to R1?

Suppose an outsider who neither lived in the community,
owned property there, nor planned to move there, showed up
at the meetings.

Suppose this nonresident uninvolved outsider spoke at great
length about how the zoning should be changed to R1.

Wouldn't you want to know why that person was so interested,
wouldn't you?

but you find a way to personalize it.

The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time.

They affected everyone after you as well.

They did not affect you and they did not affect Len.

You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine.

Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother
to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of
"changes of 1968 or 1969."

That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio
license.

"Ana amateur radio license?"

Typo alert! Gee, you found *another* one of my typos, Len!

Thanks!

It should read:

"Nobody says you have to get an amateur radio license."

Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative
to get an amateur radio license.

Where did I say that, Len? Show us, if you can. Otherwise you're
just making stuff up.

Hypocrite.

You sure are, sometimes!

But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much
time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't
going to get...

"Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU?

Len, if you were going to get an amateur radio license,
you would have done so years ago.

But you didn't get one when the medical waivers were created in 1990.

You didn't get one when the Tech lost its code test in
1991.

Nor did you get one when the code and written testing
for all license classes was drastically reduced in 2000.

It's pretty clear that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license. So your interest must be in something else.

I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio
license eliminated.

That and a lot more. Such as age limits and more written-test
reductions. Plus you'd like to do away with ARRL, subbands,
bandplans, and a whole lot more.

Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to
throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1
deletion?

I'm not throwing anything on anyone, Len.

I'm just shedding a little light on the subject.

Seems to tick you off no end to
have to face opposition to your ideas, though.

What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status,
title, and privileges?

I'm not "afraid of" any of that, Len. Besides, if the standards
are lowered, my "status" may actually rise, not fall.

What the heck, I'd already started
15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating
environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any
amateur activity.

How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing.

The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to
wage war and kill the enemy.

That's true. But you were talking about the radio operating
environment,
weren't you? Those ADA facilities looked pretty civilized to me.

The military "field days" were not little outings in a park
once a year.

Did they have "field day" at ADA?

Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high
explosive ordinance going off nearby.

How much of that went on at ADA, Len? I didn't see any pictures of
that sort of thing.

And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you
had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else.....

To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!"

Well, you've just confirmed what I thought, Len. It's all about you.

Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it
TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home.

Maybe you did. Certainly a lot of military personnel did. No
denying that.

But you seem to deny that *any* civilians face *any* danger.

Police - firefighters - emergency medical personnel - they're
all civilians, yet they face danger all the time. Look how many
NYC police and firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty
on September 11, 2001 - how safe were they, Len?

One image from that terrible day that I will always recall is
the streams of people heading out of and away from the burning
towers - while the police, firefighters and EMTs were
running *towards* them....

Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently
so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want
to get into amateur radio.

Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently.
That doesn't mean I must agree with them.

Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree
with YOUR opinions?

Where do I insist on that, Len? Show us, if you can.

You're the one who cannot
tolerate difference of opinion, and hurl insults at those who
disagree or prove you wrong.

There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no
problem.

Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for
any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the
FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over
and above any other mode. All are optional.

So what? You've banged that drum many times, Len, but you don't
explain why it should matter.

There's no requirement that amateurs use any particular mode, or
technology, or frequency band, or power level, or antenna - yet the
tests cover a wide range of subjects.

Some say "why should I learn Morse Code if I don't intend to
use it?" And that's a fair question.

The answer is "why should I learn *anything* I don't intend to
use?"

For example, if someone wants to operate 75 meter AM with
hollow state equipment, why do they have to learn all that
VHF/UHF stuff, and solid-state stuff, digital stuff, beam
antennas, etc.?

Just because no one at the FCC is paying attention doesn't mean that
the present rules are worthwhile.

"No one at the FCC is paying attention"?

Just because they disagree with you?

It was just a guess. Why else would they allow such arbitrary and
redundant rules, exams, and license classes to exist?

POLITICS. The present system of U.S. amateur radio regulations, at
least up to the year 2000, was lobbied for by the ARRL. The
Reading Room at the FCC is full of documents attesting to that.

It's also full of documents from non-ARRL sources "lobbying" for
the same things.

Tsk, bad spin on your part.

What spin? It's the truth, Len. Anybody can
propose things to FCC, and many have.

For example:

The ARRL filed the first "incentive licensing" proposal in 1963.
Over the next year or so there were at least *10* more
proposals, all from non-ARRL sources, that all got RM numbers.

That was long before the internet, ECFS, etc.

So much for your anti-League spin...

The ARRL has remained an equivalent
of "City Hall" politics in the past...since the creation of
the FCC in 1934 and up until the beginning of the 1990s. It
has been clearly evident to disinterested parties in all that
time when the league got what the league wanted.

What's the problem if the ARRL sometimes succeeds in their
proposals? Some ARRL proposals are pretty good.

Did you know that way back in 1951 the ARRL *opposed* the
creation of the Amateur Extra license?

So much for your anti-ARRL spin...

Did you read Footnote 142, Len?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you don't like footnotes, Jimmie. You've said
so in the past.

It's not about me, Len. Did you read Footnote 142? Or are
you too proud and angry to even look at it?

No to all the above. FCC just doesn't think that amateur radio
deserves their maximum-mission attention in their Congress-law-
mandated task of regulating ALL United States civil radio.

How do you know, Len? You're not FCC.

It is very easy to see by any disinterested observer, Jimmie.

Go to the FCC website, go to the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau page, then through that go to the Amateur Radio page.
What is the latest date on important documents there? 2002.

There's not been ANY important issues put forth on that page
in three years. Not the S25 revisions at WRC-03, not the 18
Petitions, not the release of NPRM 05-143.

Now check around the OTHER radio services' issues, documents
and so forth and count them up anywhichwayyouwant. Far, far
MORE matters discussed by both the Commission and the Public
on those OTHER matters than amateur radio issues.

So what?

I understand the reason for the split in privs between the Tech/Tech+
and the G/A/E licensees. The reason for that barrier no longer exists,
but the exam and licensing schema has not kept pace. Time to perform a
top-down review, starting with basis and purpose.

The time may not be ripe just yet, Brian. Let's wait until the
FCC decides what to do about NPRM 05-143 and issue a Memorandum
Report and Order on it.

I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated.

Is your name Brian Burke?

No. I'm not him at all.

Are you having an identity crisis?

No. Are you confused? You sure seem to be, Len. Newsgroup postings are
not private conversations.

Here, I'll repeat it for you:

I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated.

I've thought that for a long time.

There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length
since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the
morse code testing for a license issue.

Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent
claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test.

GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do."

No. You're not the boss.

You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME
nor judgemental on "what I will do."

I sure as heck don't want to be you, Len!

But I have all the qualifications needed to judge what you will do.

No judgement is really needed, though. You've already started on
other areas besides getting rid of the Morse Code test. Age
requirements,
elimination of license classes, more reductions in the written tests,
elimination of subbands and bandplans.

Anyone who reads your voluminous postings knows what you're up to, Len.

Regardless, "the 1998 ARRL proposal" is OLD HISTORY. It doesn't
apply to anything NOW.

Brian brought it up.

No, you've continually barfed up League-speak in here as a
devoted postulant at the Church of St. Hiram.

No, Brian brought it up.

You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't
apply to anything NOW....

Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion"
concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the
Imposter (aka "K4YZ").

No, you've mentioned it many times in many contexts. As if it somehow
mattered.

And what's all this "imposter" nonsense anyway? You claim to know who
did and did not serve in the US military, so it should be easy to find
out
who is and is not a veteran of the United States Marine Corps - right?

Something about databases?

You keep demanding DD-214s. If K4YZ sent you his DD-214 electronically,
would
you admit that you were wrong and that he is, indeed, a veteran?

Or would you carry on as you usually do?

I think the latter.

I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the
majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done
by morse code mode since 1948

Why is that valid to "amateur" radio??

...for the reason being that I
was assigned at a major Army communications station serving
a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years.

One station. One country's army. Yet you try to make it sound
like the whole world.

Besides, it's a ncient history.

Most of all, you contradict yourself. Amateur radio isn't the military.
So
what the military did all those years ago doesn't have much relevance
to amateur radio testing today.

YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that.

How do you know, Len? You don't know what I have done. There's a lot I
have done in my life that I don't write about here.

And what does it matter?

Suppose someone who *had* been in the military, and
*had* done all sorts of radio communication for the military
and government service, were to
show up here and say that the Morse Code test should be retained for
an Amateur Radio license.

Would you admit you were wrong and defer to that person's opinion?

Or would you abuse them the way you abuse everyone who disagrees with
you?

I think the latter.

In fact I *know* it would be the latter - because it's already
happened.

So it doesn't matter what my experience or service or education is.
All that matters to you is that I disagree with you - and you behave
like a three-year-old.

For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for
Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw...

Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight
the War on Terror? Bon voyage.

I think you're getting a bit wacky, Len.

The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from
you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change
your house in any way, right?

Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING
to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up.

It's a valid analogy. That's why you want me to give it up!

Explain to us why it's OK for you to try to keep the neighborhood where

you live unchanged and tied to the standards of 1960, but it's not OK
for radio amateurs to try to keep the Morse Code test?

Explain to us why you demand that others accept 'progress' and
'change',
and 'keep up with the times', but yet *you* insist that your
neighborhood
must not change, and the owners of an adjacent property must conform
to *your* idea of what they can do with their land.

Know what's really ironic? The end result was that they built houses
that
are now worth *more* than yours!

Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O
port?

One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots
of things.

Sure they can. Doesn't mean they should. I can say all kinds of nasty
things like that to you - but I don't. Neither does Hans.

Do you think anyone is impressed by your outbursts like that?

Do you think it makes anyone respect you, or agree with you, or think
you're a better person?

Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military
veterans.

So are many others - K8MN, W4NTI, K4YZ, K2UNK, to name just a few.

Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition
and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!"

Ah yes, a classic Anderson hissy-fit.

Len, do you think anyone is impressed by your outbursts like that one?

Do you think it makes anyone respect you, or agree with you, or think
you're a better person?

It doesn't.

What it does is to make you look like an out-of-control three-year-old
who's badly in need of a time-out.