On 01 Feb 2004 22:07:53 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Old School wrote:
On 01 Feb 2004 19:18:19 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:



I have no Idea what your talking about.


On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:09:11 -0500, Lou wrote:
Of course not, with that empty head of yours.

How did you get so old Bruce?
According to qrz.com you are 311 years old!!!
Born in 1698!!! Hahahaaa! No wonder your stupidity shows....

Bruce is a real stuffy prick, and this no-code **** is eating
his belly out. lol

It sure is and him and a few other will be alone on HF

"Old School" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:19 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
news
On 01 Feb 2004 20:59:58 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Actually it is highly unlikely that it will go through as proposed.
The
FCC
will consider this petition along with the 14 others and probably
come
up
with something entirely different if history is any indicator.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee you are correct. One thing that will probably not make it is FREE
Handouts
for Techs to General

How is it FREE if everyone still has to study and pay for it? Are you
this dumb?

The ARRL has proposed an automatic upgrade from Tech to General with no
additional testing and no submission of forms. i.e. The FCC would simply
make a few keystrokes in the database to accomplish this. Since it
requires
no effort, no test, no submittal of forms and no fee on the part of the
Technician, I'd say that qualifies as a free handout for the Technicians.
However, the FCC's history so far demonstrates that they will not go for
automatic upgrades so that part of the proposal has a high probability of
getting dumped.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If that is so, then how would the FCC handle streamlining the
licensing. It is the FCC that wants this. The ARRL is the body that
has thrown in the NO-CODE. Everyone is putting this onto the techs,
what about the Advanced Licensees that will have a free hand out (in
your words) to extra? No one is bitching at them!!! Its all comes down
to the CODE either way you look at it.

A number of people ARE upset about the free upgrades proposed for the
Advanced also. There's no reason that they should get them. They can get
off their behinds and take the test. The focus is on the Techs not because
of the code but because there are so many more of them than Advanced
licensees and because the Techs generally have a lot less experience
overall.

The FCC did not solicit petitions or initiate an NPRM of their own. At this
time the FCC doesn't really care one way or the other about the code issue.
There were 14 petitions thrown into the hopper before the ARRLs, several of
which proposed no-code licensing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 01 Feb 2004 22:47:06 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

I guess I have proved that your mind is closed and
also your ears. So who is actually kidding who here?

The only thing you have proved is that your a No-Code Knuckle Draggin CBer

Still has the closed mind. You just cant teach an old dog new tricks.

On 01 Feb 2004 22:48:58 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

How is it FREE if everyone still has to study and pay for it? Are you
this dumb?



God your a Moron, no wonder your nothing more than a Knuckle Dragger

Still no answer! Have I got your brain stuck in a flip flop? Or do you
have a brain?

On 01 Feb 2004 22:51:27 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Since it requires
no effort, no test, no submittal of forms and no fee on the part of the
Technician, I'd say that qualifies as a free handout for the Technicians.

Now you have really confussed him DEE.
Ill bet he calls the FCC and complains that its not fair for him to have to
take another test

Keep reading post dummy.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:44:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:19 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
news On 01 Feb 2004 20:59:58 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Actually it is highly unlikely that it will go through as proposed.
The
FCC
will consider this petition along with the 14 others and probably
come
up
with something entirely different if history is any indicator.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee you are correct. One thing that will probably not make it is FREE
Handouts
for Techs to General

How is it FREE if everyone still has to study and pay for it? Are you
this dumb?

The ARRL has proposed an automatic upgrade from Tech to General with no
additional testing and no submission of forms. i.e. The FCC would simply
make a few keystrokes in the database to accomplish this. Since it
requires
no effort, no test, no submittal of forms and no fee on the part of the
Technician, I'd say that qualifies as a free handout for the Technicians.
However, the FCC's history so far demonstrates that they will not go for
automatic upgrades so that part of the proposal has a high probability of
getting dumped.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If that is so, then how would the FCC handle streamlining the
licensing. It is the FCC that wants this. The ARRL is the body that
has thrown in the NO-CODE. Everyone is putting this onto the techs,
what about the Advanced Licensees that will have a free hand out (in
your words) to extra? No one is bitching at them!!! Its all comes down
to the CODE either way you look at it.

A number of people ARE upset about the free upgrades proposed for the
Advanced also.

It isnt showing here! All on the techs!

There's no reason that they should get them. They can get
off their behinds and take the test. The focus is on the Techs not because
of the code but because there are so many more of them than Advanced
licensees and because the Techs generally have a lot less experience
overall.

You started out with no experience just like everyone else. You arent
born with it, so you explanation is flaud!

The FCC did not solicit petitions or initiate an NPRM of their own. At this
time the FCC doesn't really care one way or the other about the code issue.
There were 14 petitions thrown into the hopper before the ARRLs, several of
which proposed no-code licensing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If the FCC does'nt care about the code, then why would they throw out
this proposal which includes what the FCC has been wanting
(Streamlining)?

kf6foz

"Old School" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:44:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
There's no reason that they should get them. They can get
off their behinds and take the test. The focus is on the Techs not
because
of the code but because there are so many more of them than Advanced
licensees and because the Techs generally have a lot less experience
overall.

You started out with no experience just like everyone else. You arent
born with it, so you explanation is flaud!

No my explanation is not flawed. I started with no experience but STUDIED
and worked for each level that was required. I gained experience as I went
just as today's Technicians should be required to do.

By the way, turn on your spell checker.


The FCC did not solicit petitions or initiate an NPRM of their own. At
this
time the FCC doesn't really care one way or the other about the code
issue.
There were 14 petitions thrown into the hopper before the ARRLs, several
of
which proposed no-code licensing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If the FCC does'nt care about the code, then why would they throw out
this proposal which includes what the FCC has been wanting
(Streamlining)?

kf6foz


The ARRL proposal will require a major rewrite of most of Part 97. This
will involve a lot of work for the FCC. The so-called streamlining will not
justify this major overhaul since maintaining a database requires the same
work whether the license class field has 3 possible entries or 5 possible
entries. Note that there has been no indication that the FCC has been
pushing for any additional streamlining of the system since the last
overhaul in 2000. For these reasons, the ARRL proposal (and several others
that amount to major overhauls) are the least likely ones to go through.

The least amount of effort for the FCC will be to do nothing.

The second least amount of effort for the FCC will be to simply drop the
code test for one or more license classes but otherwise leave them alone.
The only change in the rules would be deleting references to Element 1.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:41:21 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:44:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
There's no reason that they should get them. They can get
off their behinds and take the test. The focus is on the Techs not
because
of the code but because there are so many more of them than Advanced
licensees and because the Techs generally have a lot less experience
overall.

You started out with no experience just like everyone else. You arent
born with it, so you explanation is flaud!

No my explanation is not flawed. I started with no experience but STUDIED
and worked for each level that was required. I gained experience as I went
just as today's Technicians should be required to do.

By the way, turn on your spell checker.

I dont spell the best and never claimed to be. Techs have to take a
test like all other hams have to take a test. Only difference is the
level of examination. Your simple explanation here in this post would
support the NO-CODE cause as well. When you have the experiance, go
for it. Most techs can operate a simple HF rig unless they are total
dummies like Bruce and Dan. I dont expect a new tech to understand
ever function on a Yaesu ft767GX, but I can guarantee you that if the
new tech has had any experience with 11 meters, he would figure it out
faster than one who hasn't. So lets all keeps the New Hams up on
UHF/VHF to learn and get experience before we turn them loose on hf?
Now it sounds like your trying to say that VHF/UHF is not as good as
HF! What is it you phoney people want?


The FCC did not solicit petitions or initiate an NPRM of their own. At
this
time the FCC doesn't really care one way or the other about the code
issue.
There were 14 petitions thrown into the hopper before the ARRLs, several
of
which proposed no-code licensing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If the FCC does'nt care about the code, then why would they throw out
this proposal which includes what the FCC has been wanting
(Streamlining)?

kf6foz


The ARRL proposal will require a major rewrite of most of Part 97. This
will involve a lot of work for the FCC. The so-called streamlining will not
justify this major overhaul since maintaining a database requires the same
work whether the license class field has 3 possible entries or 5 possible
entries. Note that there has been no indication that the FCC has been
pushing for any additional streamlining of the system since the last
overhaul in 2000. For these reasons, the ARRL proposal (and several others
that amount to major overhauls) are the least likely ones to go through.

The least amount of effort for the FCC will be to do nothing.

The second least amount of effort for the FCC will be to simply drop the
code test for one or more license classes but otherwise leave them alone.
The only change in the rules would be deleting references to Element 1.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The FCC has made references to the Streamlining. It will be alot of
work in order to change the system, but in the long run, it will be
much easier to maintain. Think about it, they will only have to
maintain 3 groups of licenses, Novice, General and Extra instead of 6,
Novice, Tech, Tech +, General, Advanced and Extra.

It is very true that the easiest way out of this is to drop the code,
but drop it period for all Licenses.

"Old School" wrote in message
...
What is it you phoney people want?


No free upgrades. Even if code is dropped they should have to take the
written. What is so hard to understand about that?

The FCC has made references to the Streamlining. It will be alot of
work in order to change the system, but in the long run, it will be
much easier to maintain. Think about it, they will only have to
maintain 3 groups of licenses, Novice, General and Extra instead of 6,
Novice, Tech, Tech +, General, Advanced and Extra.


Like I said, it does not make the system easier to maintain. For current
license class, the database only needs a single field. It doesn't matter if
there is a choice of 3 possible entries or 6 possible entries. It's a
single keystroke in a single field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:53:10 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
.. .
What is it you phoney people want?


No free upgrades. Even if code is dropped they should have to take the
written. What is so hard to understand about that?

Absolutley nothing!

The FCC has made references to the Streamlining. It will be alot of
work in order to change the system, but in the long run, it will be
much easier to maintain. Think about it, they will only have to
maintain 3 groups of licenses, Novice, General and Extra instead of 6,
Novice, Tech, Tech +, General, Advanced and Extra.


Like I said, it does not make the system easier to maintain. For current
license class, the database only needs a single field. It doesn't matter if
there is a choice of 3 possible entries or 6 possible entries. It's a
single keystroke in a single field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I should correct myself, it wont make the system easier to maintain,
however it will reduce the amount of paper work, printing supplies and
confusion at the testing site and printing facility. Therefore it will
help reduce confusion at the FFC offices.