On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote:

Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen
to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period.


If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement?

The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a
code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been
dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a
code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is
still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that?

That means that there is no international requirement (in your words, "has been
dropped").

I agree exactly: "Until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required ...."

How do you show compliance with a non-existent requirement?
Please demonstrate your proof.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, GM wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:50:19 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:
I disagree to as what it says.

I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement
that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists.

You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You
aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing
you can do will stop that.

1) I am not a troll, nor have I ever posted from easynews.com. I don't even
have an account at easynews.com.

2) I have asked a legitimate question. 47 CFR 97.301(e) bases the HF
operating privileges for the novice and technician license classes on a
requirement that now no longer exists, but the FCC hasn't removed the
requirement for those licensees to comply with the external requirement. How
are these licensees to show compliance with a[n international] requirement that
no longer exists?

If they can't demonstrate compliance, then they don't have the privilege. Is
that beyond your comprehension?

These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months
including but not limited to--

D. Stussy

This top one is NOT a handle but my name. So what if it's an "ampr.org"
address. It's one of the few that actually WORKS because I know what I'm
doing.

None of the rest are mine nor under my control. Most I've never even seen
before.

666
Anon
Anon
Anus On Line
Aunt Bea
Barabbas
BARF
Big Al
Bob Badblood
Bubba
Bojangles
Claude
Dave Allan
David
DimmyDimwitt
Dobbie
Don Souter
Doug Martin
eaxxyz3
Ed Norton
Enrique Sanchez
Erasmo Hernandez
Firebottle
Floppy Disk
Fwankie
Goodfellows Rule
Goodie Two Shoes
Groan!
Guffaw!!!
Harley1200
Henry
Herb
Ho Ho
Howie
Itell On4zzabc
Itell OnU
I Zorg
Joe Partlan
King Creole
Lloyd
Lloyd
Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm
Llyod mmmm
L Rod Hubbard
Mark Mansfield
Miami Bob
Momma Moron
nookie
Nutcase Bobby
Onxyzzy
Pabst Smear
Pappy
Pat Carter
Patrick C
PCarter
Petey Arnett
Poo Bear
Q ywhere
QRM Billy
QRP
Queenie
Randy Thomas
Rasheed
Ray Dude
Reactance
Richard W
Rob
Roger
Roger
Ron \"Stompin\" James
Sadiq Akhbar
Sammie Adams
Sammy Davis Sr.
Savant
Scammer
SLee
Stagger Lee
Stu Parker
The Moron List _
Timmie TwoShoes
Trash Radio
Troll
Virgil
Voila!
What A HOOT!!!
Wrong Way
Zippo
zzabc

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement
in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to
possess
element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international
standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF.

I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says.

I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has
any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees
must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT
COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the
privilege.

The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected
the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that
it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the
requirements set down in 97.301(e).

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to
meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if
the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for
them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of
the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent
international requirement), and thus have no such privilege.


You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The
international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can
be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it
all the time.

Please define "optional requirement."

If it's optional, it's not a requirement. If it's required, it's not an option.

47 CFR 97.301(e) is defined in terms of a requirement. That requirement,
having been turned into an option, no longer exists - but the appropriate
licenseholders, in order to execute the privilege, still must demonstrate
compliance with the non-existent requirement. How do they do this? If they
can't, then they don't have the privilege. I say that demonstrating compliance
with a non-existent requirement is an impossible act.

It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can
operate on
HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules.

What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as
night and day.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote:
It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC
regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000
changes.

Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule
and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's
so difficult to get "good help nowadays"......

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders
to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this
if the international requirement doesn't exist....

Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a
code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration
MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the
Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered
complies with "international requirements".

If each government has a choice, then it's not an "international requirement."
A requirement means that there is no choice. The replacement S25.5 means that
each country has a choice to impose a NATIONAL REQUIREMENT on its
licenseholders (something they could have done anyway). How does that become
an international requirement when some member country to the agreement can opt
out?

S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has
met the requirement? That's impossible.

Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it
is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means
that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES.

The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the
decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This
isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement".

That statement focuses on "requirement," forgetting about "international."

"Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set
by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an
entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a
temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule
change, so the situation remains as is.

Yes, there has. Treaties and international agreements supersede national laws.

Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how
the FCC works.

Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly
on this matter.....

Perhaps so, but you will find that interpretation of rules and regulations was
one of my strongest points when I worked for them. Thinking can be taxing! :-)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Dick Carroll; wrote:
...
You're surely aware of the fact that an existing law/rule/regulation is
effective during any period of time required to change or othewise update it
to comply with prevailing changes which effect its meaning. Any scheme
othewise would invite the very sort of chaos these people are planning.

Does the FCC see it thusly? You can bet on it.

1) That does not give them an unlimited amount of time to act on the change.

2) That does not justify applicability of the dependent regulation beyond the
time of the change of regulation it depends on. It becomes a regulation that
cannot be relied upon as authority (after the date of the underlying change).

3) That implies that the regulation supersedes international agreements and
treaties. Actually, treaties and international agreements supersede the laws
of the countries party to the agreement or treaty.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Hugo" wrote in
:
Alun Palmer wrote in message
...
"Landshark" . wrote in
.com:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark

Why are you blaming me for this? The original thread was crossposted. Blame
the person who started it all.

You should note that where I have noted an inapproprate group, I have killed
the cross-posting in my responses. I don't always note that, nor do I really
care. I'm not a mind reader of the originator of any thread, myself excluded.

"Phil Kane" wrote:
in it?" Toscanini replied: "let me see the old score". He looked at
it and said: "there's nothing wrong with this one except that you
need to add another cut -here- and make a change -there-".

(With thanks to the late Meredeth Willson as told in his book
"And There I Stood With My Piccolo")

There's nothing wrong with the language of the USC or CFR if (1) one
has a good command of American English and (2) one has a good
command of law and (3) one understands what the statute/regulation
was intended for in the first place.

The same thing is true of the writings of any technical profession.
I have always felt that an understanding of FCC regulations is as
important to ham radio as an understanding of the technology being
used by the ham.

Isn't it ironic that here we have a thread asking why law isn't
done in "plain English", while we also have other threads going
where several people are twisting the meaning of a regulation
into a pretzel that only a lawyer could appreciate.

With apologies to Toscanini, "there's nothing wrong with this
one except that you need to add another" comment about item 2
"and make a" further comment about item 3.

Item (2) includes finding out what the courts have said the
language means. Dictionary meanings, what the neighbor means,
or what we read on Usenet are all wonderful, but useless if a
court has already decided what it really means.

Item (3) seems to be what everyone is missing in the threads
about whether a now optional requirement exists, because the
*question* is not whether, with the mind set of a twelve year
old, one can distort the language to get what one wants, but
simply a matter of what the regulation was *intended* to do.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

If I were a troll, then why aren't I hiding behind some name that isn't
resolvable to my true identity?

We've heard your drivel before. No matter how many times you repeat it will
not make it true.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, GM wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:12:30 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Why are you blaming me for this? The original thread was crossposted. Blame
the person who started it all.

You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You
aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing
you can do will stop that.

These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months
including but not limited to--

D. Stussy
R274C
Anon
Anon
Anus On Line
Aunt Bea
Barabbas
BARF
Big Al
Bob Badblood
Bubba
Bojangles
Claude
Dave Allan
David
DimmyDimwitt
Dobbie
Don Souter
Doug Martin
eaxxyz3
Ed Norton
Enrique Sanchez
Erasmo Hernandez
Firebottle
Floppy Disk
Fwankie
Goodfellows Rule
Goodie Two Shoes
Groan!
Guffaw!!!
Harley1200
Henry
Herb
Ho Ho
Howie
Itell On4zzabc
Itell OnU
I Zorg
Joe Partlan
King Creole
Lloyd
Lloyd
Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm
Llyod mmmm
L Rod Hubbard
Mark Mansfield
Miami Bob
Momma Moron
nookie
Nutcase Bobby
Onxyzzy
Pabst Smear
Pappy
Pat Carter
Patrick C
PCarter
Petey Arnett
Poo Bear
Q ywhere
QRM Billy
QRP
Queenie
Randy Thomas
Rasheed
Ray Dude
Reactance
Richard W
Rob
Roger
Roger
Ron \"Stompin\" James
Sadiq Akhbar
Sammie Adams
Sammy Davis Sr.
Savant
Scammer
SLee
Stagger Lee
Stu Parker
The Moron List _
Timmie TwoShoes
Trash Radio
Troll
Virgil
Voila!
What A HOOT!!!
Wrong Way
Zippo
zzabc

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


"Don't bother - they're here...."


Straight from "Send in the Clowns". And as usual you're right on target.

Yep, DICK is here. Bruce is here. Dan is here...

All the usual suspects.

Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...

"Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a
fancy certificate from the US government to prove it."
Keith

Case dismissed, with prejudice.

He's just another idiot, and a code test didn't keep him or you out
of ham radio, and is unnecessary (indeed ineffective) as a filter.

Ah, yes. The "Code as a Filter" myth. I think that was #19 on the
Aaron Jones Morse Myths list.

bb

"Code gets thru when everything else will."