wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was
riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the
roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot
dash.....di dah.

Dan/W4NTI

Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and
tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch!

You cross posting fart.


Cross posting fart

you continue to chase him and do the same thing your crying to him about
......Loser

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:20:53 -0600, Rod Anderson wrote:

Sorry Dan you and the ARRL forgot to consider the affect of Americans
with Disabilities law, The only reason that the courts have not
thrown out the code requirement is the international treaty required
it, the treaty overuled US laws.

Keep believing that myth....I have a bridge for sale, too.

The only reasons that the courts have not thrown out the code
requirement a

(1) a case has never been brought (Federal courts do not issue
advisory rulings, they require an actual case) because:

(2) FCC requires that suitable accommodations be made for an
applicant's observable or claimed disabilities when tests which do
not otherwise discrimninate are given, and

(3) the Federal courts in a matter such as this require that the
plaintiff exhaust all administrative appeals and in general they
defer to the judgment of the regulatory agencies in the area of the
agency's expertise such as the requirements for a license as long as
the requirements are equitably applied and reasonable accommodations
(see #2 above) are made.

Shortly after the US ratifies the
new treaty which no longer requires the ability to send and receive
code the US courts will throw out the FCC's code requirement.

Nah... even if such a case is brought, any regulatory attorney worth
his/her salt can tie it up pending FCC action in its own sweet time.

The
courts take a dim view of irrelevant requiremnts, you are going to
have a a hard time convincing the courts that ability to receive code
at 5 wpm is necessary requirement to "talk over the radio".

See #3 above.

Morse has much in common with the use of the sliderule. 40 years ago
when I was in school engineers spent several weeks of class studying
the use of the sliderule and logarithms to simplify calculations.

Maybe in your school. In my engineering school - one of the top 3
in the US - one had to know how to use both the sliderule and log
tables in order to be admitted, which for me was 50 years ago next
month....

I have better ways to spend my time than studying Morse code but I
still can find the power of a number using a log log slide rule

K+E Log Log Duplex Vector -- I take it out once a year to prove to
my computer-geek son that I can still do it.....

But as to communications law....leave that to us attorney
specialists. This is MY field.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Registered Professsional Engineer

Principal Attorney
Communications Law Center
San Francisco, CA

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron.

Dan/W4NTI

Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole.

--
GO# 40

OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime
I damn well want.

Dan/W4NTI

You act like a 9 year old punk.

--
GO# 40

Let me try and help you moron. I don't give a rats ass what you think.
Clear?

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:20:53 -0600, Rod Anderson wrote:

Sorry Dan you and the ARRL forgot to consider the affect of Americans
with Disabilities law, The only reason that the courts have not
thrown out the code requirement is the international treaty required
it, the treaty overuled US laws.

Keep believing that myth....I have a bridge for sale, too.

The only reasons that the courts have not thrown out the code
requirement a

(1) a case has never been brought (Federal courts do not issue
advisory rulings, they require an actual case) because:

(2) FCC requires that suitable accommodations be made for an
applicant's observable or claimed disabilities when tests which do
not otherwise discrimninate are given, and

(3) the Federal courts in a matter such as this require that the
plaintiff exhaust all administrative appeals and in general they
defer to the judgment of the regulatory agencies in the area of the
agency's expertise such as the requirements for a license as long as
the requirements are equitably applied and reasonable accommodations
(see #2 above) are made.

Shortly after the US ratifies the
new treaty which no longer requires the ability to send and receive
code the US courts will throw out the FCC's code requirement.

Nah... even if such a case is brought, any regulatory attorney worth
his/her salt can tie it up pending FCC action in its own sweet time.

The
courts take a dim view of irrelevant requiremnts, you are going to
have a a hard time convincing the courts that ability to receive code
at 5 wpm is necessary requirement to "talk over the radio".

See #3 above.

Morse has much in common with the use of the sliderule. 40 years ago
when I was in school engineers spent several weeks of class studying
the use of the sliderule and logarithms to simplify calculations.

Maybe in your school. In my engineering school - one of the top 3
in the US - one had to know how to use both the sliderule and log
tables in order to be admitted, which for me was 50 years ago next
month....

31 years ago, when I entered EE school, everyone knew how to use a sliderule.
It was not required, just expected. No class time was spent learning how to use
one.
I have better ways to spend my time than studying Morse code but I
still can find the power of a number using a log log slide rule

K+E Log Log Duplex Vector -- I take it out once a year to prove to
my computer-geek son that I can still do it.....

But as to communications law....leave that to us attorney
specialists. This is MY field.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Registered Professsional Engineer

Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical waivers were
the result of ADA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 31 Jul 2003 02:21:06 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical
waivers were the result of ADA.

How soon we forget...maybe we ought to replace the Element 1 Morse
test with an Element 1 amateur radio history test...

Off the top of my head.....

In days of yore when George I reigned in Washington, some amateur
in Pennsylvania could not pass the 13 wpm test as hard as he tried.
So one day whilst in QSO with JY1, he mentioned that what ham radio
in the USA really needed more than anything else was a mechanism for
him to get an upgraded license without passing the higher speed code
test because he had (alleged) medical problems that (allegedly)
precluded him from dealing with Morse code above 5 wpm.

So when next in QSO with George I, JY1 said (in essence) "Georgie,
if you want to quarter your troops in my country - JY1 being King
Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon - do my dear friend a
favor and let him get an upgraded ham license with no higher-speed
code test".

So George I summoned the Chairman of the FCC ("Mad Man Mark" Fowler
or Al "Who the heck is he" Sykes - forget which) to his oval chamber,
clapped his hands like the Pasha does in the movies, and said "do it".

"So it was written, so it was done."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
.org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:



False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for
the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously,
you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the
acceptability of the proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

w3rv


You don't get it, do you?

I get it to the point where if I was a nocode I sure as hell would not
be stupid enough to dial up FCC Laurel and tell them to listen for me
on 7.125 Mhz and dare them to write me up "'Cause the ITU sez I'm
suddenly "legal" and you guys and yer 5wpm test nonsense don't count
now".

.. . .

Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have
access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do
this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems
could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the
rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is
what, I seriously doubt that they care.

QED. Loop closed.

w3rv

(Michael Black) wrote in message ...

.. . . . .


But shift it back to where the test is not just an obstacle
to overcome, and you may again make the hobby something that
society in general benefits from.

Definitive post Michael. Unfortunatley that ethic been hatcheted into
oblivion. Their loss.


Michael VE2BVW

w3rv

The training CD's aren't bad for practicing the code if you know the code
and just want to get better. The real situation is that a person needs to
still learn the code in the beginning. It would the same as if I was
listening to Chinese language and didn't know a word of the Chinese language
versus knowing the language on a basic level and listening to Radio China or
something like that......


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
C wrote:
No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.


Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out
I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out
random groups or even makes up QSO's.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message .org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:

False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for the
"international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously, you will
have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the acceptability of the
proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

If that were true, then where is the requirement to have "element 1 credit" in
47 CFR 97.301(e)? I don't see it anywhere in the text!

PS: "Law" usually refers to STATUTE, not agency regulation. The procedures
for the creation of each are quite different.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

You couldn't be more wrong! I have not attempted to twist this into an "OR."
The originator of the thread, who professed that no-code technicians can now
operate HF, is the one who needs this to be an "OR." I clearly have argued
that "AND" means "AND" - i.e. BOTH conditions cited are necessary to be met.
What I have said is that the second condition is now IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET as it
is currently stated, and thus Technicians and Novices LOST THEIR HF PRIVILEGES.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

Element 1 credit is NOT a requirement for 47 CFR 97.301(e). Compliance with
the non-existent international regulation is.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

Which you seem to lack, since you are substituting one requirement for another,
but there's no provision elsewhere in the regulations to do so.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
.org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:

False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for
the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously,
you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the
acceptability of the proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

w3rv


You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements_"

(_emphasis_added_).

The phrase "international requirements" is a clear reference to s25.5,
which now makes code testing optional for each administration, such as the
FCC. The code requirement for access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies appears
nowhere except in rule 301(e), which in turn only refers back to the
optional language in s25.5. If the FCC refer to the international
regulations for the code requirement, and it says there that it is
optional, then where is the determination from the FCC as required under
s25.5 that code is required? Nowhere, that's where!

I agree with this analysis, but disagree with the conclusion stated below:

Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have
access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do
this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems
could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the
rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is
what, I seriously doubt that they care.

Mr. Palmer's conclusion is wrong. What we have is an "international
requirement" that cannot be complied with. That means that one of the
regulatory requirements set by the FCC is not met, NOR CAN IT BE MET by any
licensee. Since one of the conditions is impossible to meet, 47 CFR 97.301(e)
actually conveys NO PRIVILEGE AT ALL (effective July 5, 2003).

It's not that no-code technicians may operate HF. It's that coded-technicians
and novices may NOT operate on HF bands. Their privilege was automatically
STRIPPED by the FCC's regulation being dependent on the international one.