From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:49 pm

[Mother Superior strides out of the cloister, knuckle-spank
ruler carried like a baton, the Book of Common Maxims
under her arm...]

wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am

the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
to the ARRL what 50 years ago

I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
of US radio amtaeurs.

The FCC thought so too - well into the 1970s.

Pure and simple bull****, Mother. Prior to the
1990s the FCC was pressured constantly by just one
amateur organization - the ARRL. Since amateur radio
has NOT been a priority item on the FCC's tasks, the
FCC just let the ARRL have what the ARRL wanted.
After all, the ARRL claimed it "spoke for the
amateur" even though their membership was a minority
of never more than a quarter of all licensees.

Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
life) Hiram Percy Maxim.

Maxim died in 1936. 1956 was twenty years later.

Twenty years is a "long time" to you? Poor baby.

Is this more Ruler-Spank, Mother?

"T.O.M." used his editorial pages
to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.

He also promoted many other things on those pages, such as technical
progress, operating skills, public service, and the observance of
government regulations.

Was he a Saint to you, Mother Superior?

The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.

Publications were one way to support the organization.

The ONLY way to support so many services that non-
members could do themselves. Three years ago the reported
profit of the ARRL to the IRS was 12 MILLION dollars. That
kind of cash inflow does NOT come solely from membership.


ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
organization, the Radio Club of America.

But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
- just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
organization.

You are in error, Mother, but further argument on that is
useless. The League is your shepherd, you shall not want.

There were lots of
"national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
dropped out.

Name some.

Go read Thomas H. White's online Radio History from the
beginning to about 1927. White is a much better historian
than yourself.

RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
amateur radio.

It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
honorary and historical.

In other words, you aren't a member!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
retainer from the ARRL.

There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
contacting FCC directly.

Do YOU have a legal firm on retainer, Mother? Or do you
have a dental retainer, hoping to "take a bite" out of
your perceived anti-morse "crime?"

ARRL kept promoting themselves as
"representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.

Why are you suspicious, Len?

ARRL is NOT a government body. They are a private
organization accountable to no one but themselves,
yet they ACT like they are some exhaulted "representative"
of ALL radio amateurs. [ARRL membership hasn't gotten
more than a quarter of all amateur radio licensees in
a long time...if ever]

ARRL represents ONLY the membership and that mambership
is a MINORITY of all amateur radio licensees in the USA.

Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.

"Anyone" could but extremely few did. Spend some
time in the Reading Room in DC and come back with
your results.


Back in the 1960s, when the changes known as "incentive licensing" were
being debated, FCC received over 6000 comments from individuals and
groups. There were at least 10 proposals besides the ARRL's. Those
other proposals were taken seriously enough by FCC to get RM numbers.

Did you actually count all those yourself? :-)

Tsk, that was before your time, Mother, before you
were Sister Nun of the Above. You are just
paraphrasing another on that. Don't get your habit
in a bind "reporting things" you weren't a part of.

What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
(by administrations) morse testing for any license having
below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.

Not true! Not true at all, Len.

The hell it isn't. Take off your cowl and LOOK.

The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their
policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to
ITU-R S25.5.

More errors. That didn't change until 2003.

Given the strong support from many other member countries to change
S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would
be majority support to change S25.5.

A NO-OPINION position is a face-saving trick. If the vote
went one way, the ARRL could claim it "supported" it by "not
opposing it." If the vote went the other way, the League
was "not responsible" for it. It's a trick used in politics
for years in many other endeavors.


In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
test for General but retaining it for Extra.

Mother, the ARRL's "Petition" (a rather rambling document)
is public view. Do NOT tell me what it "was about."
Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. You are
NOT needed as some "interpreter."

The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
eliminated for General.

The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
retained for Extra.

You read each and every one of them, Mother? I don't think
so. For your sins say 5000 Hail Hirams.

The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
they *are* majorities.

ARRL is a MINORITY "representative." Face the cold, hard fact.


That was VERY important to the controlling
coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
others...in a hobby activity.

Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len.

Bull****. It is CLEAR to anyone NOT a Believer
in the sanctity and nobility of the ARRL.

Do try to get your history straight.

It is MUCH "straighter" than yours, Mother. I have MORE of
history of ALL radio than you after you've been spoon-fed
information dribbled out to you by the League.

The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
earlier.

If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes
of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-)

Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED.

btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.

Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion
routine again. That's SO transparent.

What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
"good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.

How so?

What part of my paragraph is unclear to you? Do you need
it translated to Latin? What?


How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?

You tell us. That's not part of the thread but one of
your attempts at diversion into another subject. Tsk.

Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
War?

Oh, oh, Mother Superior strips off her habit to
reveal - ta-da! - JIMMY NOSERVE, expert on military
anything because he READ about it yet never served his
country in the military!

Jimmy Noserve should inform the group of his fantastic
wartime experience using "CW" with the AN/PRC-25 and
the AN/PRC-77!!!

The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism.

Should accomplishment not be rewarded?

VANITY is an "accomplishment?!?" Review your Deadly
Sins, sweetums.

Combining
"vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect
setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they
WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the
window...rank, status, title RULED.

btw, Len, did you ever manage to get your Extra out of the box? It's
been more than six and a half years now...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mother, I didn't lay on the floor in the sign of the ARRL
diamond to take a lifetime VOW in the Church of St. Hiram.

BWAAAAAAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I changed my mind, Jimmy Noserve. Several times
before 6 1/2 years ago. Human beings with free will
are allowed to do that. Really. I see NO point in
re-creating "skills" of what was long ago and not
used in the radio world today...other than by
some amateurs play-acting "pioneering" long-dead
technology. If you don't like that opinion, TS for
you.

If I want to volunteer in emergency communications I
will go to the California ACS. Ham license (from FCC
or FDA) is not needed. I can do several things, all
volunteer, which do NOT need manual telegraphy skills.
I don't need to do that since I know that the present
City-County-State emergency communications are run
well by regular staff, proven by REAL emergencies.


Do you have a need to look down on everyone?

All that are shorter than I...at least to see them clearly
wearing bifocals. :-)

Why are you looking down on professionals, Jimmy
Noserve? Aren't you one of them? Or did you lose
your job (whatever that was someplace)?


How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code
test is eliminated?

BRAGGING RIGHTS, sweetums. SELF-PERCEPTION as a mighty
"radio operator" (circa 1930s). Loss of the rabid
olde-tyme morsemen's ability to LOOK DOWN ON ALL WHO
DON'T CARE FOR MORSEMANSHIP.

Are you BLIND? Why can't you understand what I wrote?
Do you need Remedial English or what?

YOU do all of the above, desperately trying to disguise
it by attempting humiliation of all those who disagree
with you.


So much so that I made a career choice of
it while studying for an entirely different sort of
work.

Funded by the taxpayers, too.

Not beyond half a year at Art Center School of Design
(the old campus on 3rd Street, not the new one in
Pasadena). Changing majors made me inelligible for
G. I. Bill funding according to regulations at the time,
according to the VA. "Call the VA," Jimmy.
"Call the VA!" BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

No matter. I was employed in electronics in aerospace,
good job. Self-learning allowed me to rise in the
ranks to have design responsibility well before getting
that sheepskin.

But, in 1957 YOU were NOT a "taxpayer," Jimmy.
I DID serve my country in the US Army. You NEVER
served in any military branch of the United States,
yet you are so very judgemental and SUPERIOR to
those of us who did serve. You claim to be "expert"
in things before your time, especially grand details
of military action and realpolitic...just from
READING about them.


I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working.

Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several
hundred people trained to do the job.

"Several hundred people?!?" WTF, Jimmie Noserve, do
you now insist on a TO&E breakdown? Incredible.

We've already HAD this discussion in here, Jimmy. ADA
transmitters had less than a hundred personnel on four
operating teams keeping the circuits running 24/7 on HF.
You need details? Go he

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

describes what I did, what others did, where and what it
was. 6 MB file size, takes about 19 minutes download over
dial-up.

YOU NEVER did anything close to that, Jimmie Noserve.
You are envious and trying to mask that envy. Be nice.

That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do -
self-funded and largely self-trained.

Sorry, sweetums, you are WRONG when you go into that
song-and-dance. Talk to some of the ex-USN Chiefs about
being "self-trained" on equipment "self-funded." :-) Not
only that, but they got three hots and a cot plus pay.

Are you so ignorant that you think the US military
communications operates like ham radio?!?!? Incredible.
Well, you've NEVER done that, so I have to cut you some
slack. [MARS is NOT an example of regular military
communications]

I'm NOT judgemental about "what amateurs do," sweetie,
I'm talking about GETTING INTO amateur radio, the
FEDERAL REGULATIONS pertaining to GETTING a license.
Unless there was a Revolution last night, the US
government and the US Constitution still allows us
CITIZENS to petition our government. Regardless of
what you think/believe, amateurs do NOT "rule" US
amateur radio nor have the final say-so on it. Really.


Is youth somehow wrong, Len?

"Youth is wasted on the young." :-) Quote of someone...:-)

I enjoyed mine despite your making fun of it. :-)

YOU aren't young anymore, Jimmy. Face the fact. Time
doesn't stand still for any of us. Living in the PAST
as you love to do is your own delusion.


What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you
that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react?

I'd tell him flat out:

1. "**** off!"

2. "Get some mental help, dude, you are twisted."

Jimmie Noserve, you've NEVER had any military experience
yet you keep on as if you did. Why is that? Arrogance?
Presumption of being "better" than those who served? Why?

Why do you believe YOU are so SUPERIOR that YOU can tell
others what to do?


Then why do you tell us so much about your past?

That's where you LOVE to live, Jimmie. I'm just trying
to make you feel at-ease. :-)

You LOVE play-acting like you are "pioneering radio."
Sorry, Jimmy, that was done long ago. By others. NOT
you.


If these self-styled emperors want to
flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).

Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....

Hardly. :-) What YOU don't like is MY mirror being held
up to show YOU YOUR reflection. BOOO! :-)


Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?

Not really. Flipping others' paradigms takes a LONG time.
Especially those who've been thoroughly brainwashed by
you-know-what organization. Why are YOU so edgy and
combative about no-code-test-advocates' postings? You
continue to attack bits and pieces of such postings well
out of context, trying to divert attention from what we say.
Yet you completely CONDONE identifiable garbage-mouths
because of their amateur licenses requiring code testing.
Looks to me like you are in FEAR of losing your bragging
rights, possibly your beloved ARRL when the Archaic
Radiotelegraphy Society fades away...replaced by new
generations that don't care for your antiquated ideals.

Put the habit back on, Mother SUPERIOR. Go thee and say
those 5000 Hail Hirams, then pray for your soul's
redemption.

From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:57 pm

wrote:

Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
inbred bigoted morsemen in here.

Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
Must be your own four neurons in the way.

Gee, Len....do you think posting that way will cause people to change
their minds and agree with you?

Oh, oh, here comes Mother Superior again, waving
her ruler, a weapon of morale destruction! :-)

Do you think FCC would be convinced by such arguments?

Mother, I'm NOT posting "to the FCC" here...just to a
mixed group that includes rabid morsewomen such as
yourself.

Is that sort of posting your idea of how a "professional" behaves?

Tsk, tsk, Mother, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
In here the AMATEURS hang out. Ergo, one must adopt
language these AMATEURS us. If that means offending
you, TS.

You don't like that? Go back to the cloister. Pray for
redemption of your soul after being among those you
perceive as evil no-coders. :-)

From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:57 pm

wrote:

Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
inbred bigoted morsemen in here.

Take YOUR beloved morse code test and shove it up YOUR ass.
Push real hard...there seems to be an obstruction there.
Must be your own four neurons in the way.

Gee, Len....do you think posting that way will cause people to change
their minds and agree with you?

Oh, oh, here comes Mother Superior again, waving
her ruler, a weapon of morale destruction! :-)

Do you think FCC would be convinced by such arguments?

Mother, I'm NOT posting "to the FCC" here...just to a
mixed group that includes rabid morsewomen such as
yourself.

Is that sort of posting your idea of how a "professional" behaves?

Tsk, tsk, Mother, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
In here the AMATEURS hang out. Ergo, one must adopt
language these AMATEURS us. If that means offending
you, TS.

You don't like that? Go back to the cloister. Pray for
redemption of your soul after being among those you
perceive as evil no-coders. :-)

an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

bad night for DX?

"Mr. Ambassador" had a baaaaaad century.... :-)

Just one more example why US Foreign Policy is not as good
as it could be, courtesy of the State Department. :-)

wrote:
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

bad night for DX?

"Mr. Ambassador" had a baaaaaad century.... :-)

Just one more example why US Foreign Policy is not as good
as it could be, courtesy of the State Department. :-)
well it could be worse Robeson could be working for the guys at state

might have moved up 911 a good decade

" wrote in
oups.com:

From: "an old friend" on Sun, Sep 3 2006 2:41 pm


wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
wrote:
From: Slow Code on Fri, Sep 1 2006 5:36 pm
" wrote in
Rick Frazier wrote:

seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how
about you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you
on the bands right now?

Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?

becuase the answer is that there is nobody on we wants to "talk' to

Or maybe nobody wants to talk to him... :-)

that too

:-)

the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by
listening to the ARRL what 50 years ago

I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
of US radio amtaeurs. Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
life) Hiram Percy Maxim. "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.

I think they betrayed it wether they meant to or not by as you will
sowing the seeds for the battles that were to follow

indeed in looking only back at Maxim I submit they betaryed even him

Careful, careful, Mark...Sister Nun of the Above, now the
Mother SUPERIOR is BACK, ruler in hand, ready to spank the
knuckles of anyone who DARES say anything negative about
the blessed, sacred ARRL!

I was literally going back 50 years to 1956 and remembering
how both the electronics hobby and the (much, much bigger)
electronics industry was doing...preparing to move to
California and the aerospace industries that year. Frankly,
the ARRL wasn't keeping up with the electronics industry
other than keeping QST afloat with advertising revenue.
Since they were largely unaware (from their publications)
what the (then) long-haul radio communications were doing,
they couldn't really decide which way to go for amateurs.
Their decisions were based largely on ignorance, especially
that of SSB. The commercial-military folks on HF were already
USING SSB on HF and had been doing it for over two decades by
1956...yet the ARRL wanted amateurs to believe that "amateur
radio 'pioneered' SSB." :-) Bull****.


yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he
is just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the
brain child of the ARRL

It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
RAND, and STATUS. That was VERY important to the controlling
coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
others...in a hobby activity.

What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
"good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship. The
morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
decades after the 1930s.

and therby betraying the fundental core of the service, a change that
needs to removed altogether if possible hence my fovoring a oe 2 class
license system with the prevedlges indentical to all the lclasses that
exist (with modern radio I reconize it may be needed to have some sort
of up or out license with 10 to do it becuase of the volume of material
but the classes should be equal in preveledge and the class should not
be a publicly accsable (except on an ARS wide) basis

Well, it's a subject which is damn clear to outside observers
but the Believers are about to strike a blow for the Church of
St. Hiram. Mother SIPERIOR is back in her habit of
one-liner sentences thinking she can slay the dragons (of her
mind) which defile the sanctity of the Newington folks who
"know what is good for amateur radio!" :-)

Prior to 1990 there were already FIVE different license classes
in US amateur radio. The no-code Technician class made it SIX.
A decade later the FCC chopped that in half. Rightly so in my
estimation. It had gotten literally Byzantine in structure with
the privileged bandplans and who could use what mode. It was
worse than the commercial-professional operator licenses. The
Restructuring was sorely needed for the avocational activities.

The worst blow to the rank-status-title morsemen was cutting
the code test rate down to a single, low one, well below the
exhaulted, royal rate of 20 WPM that they overused for
bragging rights before 1998. :-) Those extra super special
morsemen lost NO PRIVILEGES ON THE BANDS but the sky fell in
on their bragging rights. Boo-hoo, poor morsemen. :-)


Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
"ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
over most of the world via PCs and the Internet. Why
IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
If some dumb**** wants to moralize about "working" and
"investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
abuse/mis-use. If these self-styled emperors want to
flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).

and inccreasingly cold and unfeeling and failing to fufill the debt
they owe to those that came before them

I disagree with you a bit...nobody "owes" anything
other than bill payments, Mark.

The rabid amateur morsemen are just full of themselves.
They have lost their ability to RULE by that singular
skill, are now worried that they might lose all their
rank, title, status, and privileges when the code test
is finally eliminated. Few of them seem to have much
for themselves beyond that bragging right. shrug





I think we got k00k material here.

"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:


your proctologist called, they found your head.

Slow Code:kook on parade



You got cut & paste down pretty good Mark. Now if you could only get
amateur radio down, you could be a real ham and not a dumbed down one.

SC

" wrote in
oups.com:

From: "an old friend" on Sun, Sep 3 2006 2:41 pm


wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
wrote:
From: Slow Code on Fri, Sep 1 2006 5:36 pm
" wrote in
Rick Frazier wrote:

seeking mental help. If you don't think you need therapy, how
about you get a life and if you are so Pro-CW, why aren't you
on the bands right now?

Excellent question, "Slow." Why didn't you answer it?

becuase the answer is that there is nobody on we wants to "talk' to

Or maybe nobody wants to talk to him... :-)

that too

:-)

the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by
listening to the ARRL what 50 years ago

I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
of US radio amtaeurs. Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
life) Hiram Percy Maxim. "T.O.M." used his editorial pages
to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.

I think they betrayed it wether they meant to or not by as you will
sowing the seeds for the battles that were to follow

indeed in looking only back at Maxim I submit they betaryed even him

Careful, careful, Mark...Sister Nun of the Above, now the
Mother SUPERIOR is BACK, ruler in hand, ready to spank the
knuckles of anyone who DARES say anything negative about
the blessed, sacred ARRL!

I was literally going back 50 years to 1956 and remembering
how both the electronics hobby and the (much, much bigger)
electronics industry was doing...preparing to move to
California and the aerospace industries that year. Frankly,
the ARRL wasn't keeping up with the electronics industry
other than keeping QST afloat with advertising revenue.
Since they were largely unaware (from their publications)
what the (then) long-haul radio communications were doing,
they couldn't really decide which way to go for amateurs.
Their decisions were based largely on ignorance, especially
that of SSB. The commercial-military folks on HF were already
USING SSB on HF and had been doing it for over two decades by
1956...yet the ARRL wanted amateurs to believe that "amateur
radio 'pioneered' SSB." :-) Bull****.


yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he
is just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the
brain child of the ARRL

It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
RAND, and STATUS. That was VERY important to the controlling
coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
others...in a hobby activity.

What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
"good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship. The
morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
decades after the 1930s.

and therby betraying the fundental core of the service, a change that
needs to removed altogether if possible hence my fovoring a oe 2 class
license system with the prevedlges indentical to all the lclasses that
exist (with modern radio I reconize it may be needed to have some sort
of up or out license with 10 to do it becuase of the volume of material
but the classes should be equal in preveledge and the class should not
be a publicly accsable (except on an ARS wide) basis

Well, it's a subject which is damn clear to outside observers
but the Believers are about to strike a blow for the Church of
St. Hiram. Mother SIPERIOR is back in her habit of
one-liner sentences thinking she can slay the dragons (of her
mind) which defile the sanctity of the Newington folks who
"know what is good for amateur radio!" :-)

Prior to 1990 there were already FIVE different license classes
in US amateur radio. The no-code Technician class made it SIX.
A decade later the FCC chopped that in half. Rightly so in my
estimation. It had gotten literally Byzantine in structure with
the privileged bandplans and who could use what mode. It was
worse than the commercial-professional operator licenses. The
Restructuring was sorely needed for the avocational activities.

The worst blow to the rank-status-title morsemen was cutting
the code test rate down to a single, low one, well below the
exhaulted, royal rate of 20 WPM that they overused for
bragging rights before 1998. :-) Those extra super special
morsemen lost NO PRIVILEGES ON THE BANDS but the sky fell in
on their bragging rights. Boo-hoo, poor morsemen. :-)


Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
"ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
over most of the world via PCs and the Internet. Why
IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.
If some dumb**** wants to moralize about "working" and
"investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
abuse/mis-use. If these self-styled emperors want to
flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).

and inccreasingly cold and unfeeling and failing to fufill the debt
they owe to those that came before them

I disagree with you a bit...nobody "owes" anything
other than bill payments, Mark.

The rabid amateur morsemen are just full of themselves.
They have lost their ability to RULE by that singular
skill, are now worried that they might lose all their
rank, title, status, and privileges when the code test
is finally eliminated. Few of them seem to have much
for themselves beyond that bragging right. shrug




Ping real Hams,

You'll want to use CW if you ever have to save len Anderson, that
should help him change his brain cell regarding the value of Morse.

Thanks

73
Sc

Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

From: "an old friend" on Sun, Sep 3 2006 2:41 pm

slow code:kook on parade

wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:49 pm

[Mother Superior strides out of the cloister, knuckle-spank
ruler carried like a baton, the Book of Common Maxims
under her arm...]

What are you smokin', Pops?


wrote:

From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am


the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
to the ARRL what 50 years ago

I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
of US radio amtaeurs.

The FCC thought so too - well into the 1970s.


Pure and simple bull****, Mother. Prior to the
1990s the FCC was pressured constantly by just one
amateur organization - the ARRL.

Show us. Prove it. Provide facts.

Since amateur radio
has NOT been a priority item on the FCC's tasks, the
FCC just let the ARRL have what the ARRL wanted.

Show us. Prove it. Provide facts.

After all, the ARRL claimed it "spoke for the
amateur" even though their membership was a minority
of never more than a quarter of all licensees.

Show us one U.S. amateur radio organization with even 20% of the ARRL's
membership.


Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
life) Hiram Percy Maxim.

Maxim died in 1936. 1956 was twenty years later.


Twenty years is a "long time" to you? Poor baby.

Twenty years is a long time to anyone, Len. Are you wearing the same
socks you wore twenty years ago?

Is this more Ruler-Spank, Mother?

Well, you certainly were spanked.


"T.O.M." used his editorial pages
to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.

He also promoted many other things on those pages, such as technical
progress, operating skills, public service, and the observance of
government regulations.


Was he a Saint to you, Mother Superior?

Your lack of comment to Jim's response is noted. Jim's statement was is
correct. Yours was manipulated.


The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.

Publications were one way to support the organization.


The ONLY way to support so many services that non-
members could do themselves.

Why does it bother you that members see a perceived benefit and that
they avail themselves of it? Why would it bother you that the ARRL
produces publications and sells them?

Three years ago the reported
profit of the ARRL to the IRS was 12 MILLION dollars. That
kind of cash inflow does NOT come solely from membership.

In this day and age, 12 million dollars isn't a great sum for an
organization the size of the ARRL. How much money does come from
membership, Len? Would it be fair to say that membership dues make up
40% of the total? The League charges for things like DXCC applications,
subsequent QSL card submissions, credits from LOTW and the like. These
services are used by non-members as well as members. Do you believe the
League should provide free services to non-members? What's your beef?
You aren't a member and aren't likely to be a member of the ARRL.



ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
organization, the Radio Club of America.

But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
- just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
organization.


You are in error, Mother, but further argument on that is
useless. The League is your shepherd, you shall not want.


Tell us where the error is, Len. What erroneous statement was made by Jim?

There were lots of
"national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
dropped out.

Name some.


Go read Thomas H. White's online Radio History from the
beginning to about 1927. White is a much better historian
than yourself.

You made the claim. I'd have guessed that you wouldn't have minded
backing it up. Perhaps you're feeling less confident about your statement.


RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
amateur radio.

It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
honorary and historical.


In other words, you aren't a member!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ARRL--you aren't a member!!!!!!!!!!
Amateur Radio--you aren't a participant!!!!!!!!

BWAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!


Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
retainer from the ARRL.

There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
contacting FCC directly.


Do YOU have a legal firm on retainer, Mother? Or do you
have a dental retainer, hoping to "take a bite" out of
your perceived anti-morse "crime?"

It's alright if you couldn't think of anything with which to respond to
Jim, Leonard.

ARRL kept promoting themselves as
"representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.

Why are you suspicious, Len?


ARRL is NOT a government body.

Who said it was a government body and why would it be a government body?

They are a private
organization accountable to no one but themselves,

"It", Len. It is a private organization, accountable only to its members.

yet they ACT like they are some exhaulted "representative"
of ALL radio amateurs.

"It", Len. "Exalted", Len.

[ARRL membership hasn't gotten
more than a quarter of all amateur radio licensees in
a long time...if ever]

And?

ARRL represents ONLY the membership and that mambership
is a MINORITY of all amateur radio licensees in the USA.

That MINORITY is made up of about 130,000 radio amateurs.

Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.


"Anyone" could but extremely few did. Spend some
time in the Reading Room in DC and come back with
your results.

Are you giving orders again, Len?



Back in the 1960s, when the changes known as "incentive licensing" were
being debated, FCC received over 6000 comments from individuals and
groups. There were at least 10 proposals besides the ARRL's. Those
other proposals were taken seriously enough by FCC to get RM numbers.


Did you actually count all those yourself? :-)

He provided you figures, Len. Those figures make your earlier statement
an incorrect one.

Tsk, that was before your time, Mother, before you
were Sister Nun of the Above. You are just
paraphrasing another on that. Don't get your habit
in a bind "reporting things" you weren't a part of.

Remember your statement when it comes time to defend your claims about
the ARRL and H. P. Maxim.


In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
test for General but retaining it for Extra.


Mother, the ARRL's "Petition" (a rather rambling document)
is public view. Do NOT tell me what it "was about."

Rather than read it online, why not follow your own advice and visit the
reading room in Washington, Len?

Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. You are
NOT needed as some "interpreter."

Remember your statement when making your claims about the ARRL, Len.


The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
eliminated for General.

The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
retained for Extra.


You read each and every one of them, Mother? I don't think
so. For your sins say 5000 Hail Hirams.


The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
they *are* majorities.


ARRL is a MINORITY "representative." Face the cold, hard fact.

You didn't address Jim's statement, Len. Couldn't you counter it?



That was VERY important to the controlling
coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
others...in a hobby activity.

Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len.


Bull****. It is CLEAR to anyone NOT a Believer
in the sanctity and nobility of the ARRL.

You don't have to believe anything about the ARRL, Len. You aren't a
member and you aren't a radio amateur. Be satisfied to be as you are.


Do try to get your history straight.


It is MUCH "straighter" than yours, Mother. I have MORE of
history of ALL radio than you after you've been spoon-fed
information dribbled out to you by the League.


Prove it. Your previous statement would lead one to believe that there
are large gaps in your knowledge base.

The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
earlier.


If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes
of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-)

Can you say "Novice", "Technician", "Conditional", "General", "Amateur
Extra"? Do you know that there were holdovers from another class of
license in addition? Doesn't Thomas White's history have any of this info?

Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED.

Wipe the egg off your mug, Leonard.


btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.


Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion
routine again. That's SO transparent.

He gave you facts again, Len. They whizzed right by you.


What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
"good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.

How so?


What part of my paragraph is unclear to you? Do you need
it translated to Latin? What?

He asked legit questions, Len. You provided no answer.



How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?


You tell us. That's not part of the thread but one of
your attempts at diversion into another subject. Tsk.


Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
War?


Oh, oh, Mother Superior strips off her habit to
reveal - ta-da! - JIMMY NOSERVE, expert on military
anything because he READ about it yet never served his
country in the military!

This "Mother Superior", "Nun of the Above", "Jimmy Noserve" stuff--would
that be considered your shouting of denigrations, Len?

Dave K8MN