"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
...
Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to
avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally
or
otherwise.

AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that
"wierd"
thing I
said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the
"sunset."

It is NOT a sunset clause ... NCI specifically asked for a sunset clause
so code testing would "automagically" go away when S25.5 was suppressed
or changed so that code testing was no longer required by the ITU Radio
Regs.

The FCC SPECIFICALLY declined to enact such a sunset clause, and the
text of 301 does NOT contain one, no matter how you try to twist it.

That is true - the FCC didn't enact a sunset clause to eliminate code
testing
for HF as NCI requested. I never said that's what they did.

The FCC DID enact a sunset clause that TERMINATES HF operation by licenses
of
lesser privilege than General class. That's what I've been saying that
they
did.

THEY DID NO SUCH THING. You are WRONG and your continued
repetition of incorrect information is not doing anyone a service.

Again (and again ... you people must not be able to read, only write)
....
the FCC *DOES* have records of which Techs have 5 wpm credit and
which don't ... this idea that "there are no records, so you can get
away
with it is 1) false, and 2) borders on inducement to violate the rules.

[Count your levels of quotation; you attribute this to me but I didn't say
it.]

Sorry ... but my responses are still correct.

Carl - wk3c