In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

At the very end, only three people are named - the
principal author, "with assistance from" two others.
That's three, last time I checked.

Yep, it most soy-tainly am!

And at the beginning of the paper he names himself, W5YI, W3BE, and
W4WW. That's four, last time I checked.

Maybe he's trying to confuse us.

Both of you seem highly confused at the moment.

Hokay, Hans Bigguy, have you figured out yet how to intelligibly
voice-modulate a spark transmitter?

Huh, huh?

Come on, show us technically how Reg Fessenden did it, sparking
up a song one Christmas night in 1906.

Rotsa ruck on dis wun naow...

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

Nice theory but some would dispute it thusly:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.
Had the invaders gone straight for their enemy's capital (Moscow), and been
properly prepared for the winter, the result might well have been very
different.

Go for it all about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY big guys.

Was that how it was for you at the Point, Capt Jimmie?

The German atomic program would not have come up with a workable atomic
weapon
for many years (but the Allies did not know that). Look at what it took for
the
Manhattan project to make three weapons!. And Germany did not have a delivery
system.

Gernany had no delivery system? Gosh, they should have copied
the NATIONAL TRAFFIC SYSTEM from ARRL!

Could have morse-coded all those lil neutrons quick as a flash...

Germany also messed up bigtime by not giving U-boat production and
development
top priority and support. Large amounts of their limited naval resources were
wasted on superbattleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz - had they built
improved
U-boats with those resources, again the result might well have been very
different.

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

A good thing they weren't smarter.

Good thing you morsemen have a cozy lil chat room to talk all
about AMATEUR RADIO SUBJECTS, isn't it?

So, Capt. Jimmie, what outfit were you assigned to?

N2EY wrote:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.

I don't know... making "boogie men" out of the most intellectually
gifted, innovating and striving part of his population, then
spending huge amounts of money and resources to exterminate them-
that sounds like a pretty stupid move to me.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

[snip

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are

always

referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are

also

shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data

modes at

all.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST


Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI
when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was
supposed to
mean.


... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.


Exactly!

Note: The paper ("Amateur Radio in the 21st Century") in question is not
official NCVEC policy at this time, so in this post I will change all
references to "the KL7CC paper" since he is the principle author.

This thread is meant to be about that

KL7CC

paper - particularly the parts
that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley
different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

The

KL7CC

paper is not a group controlled by NCI, they are a completely
different entity.

But they ARE a group calling for some things that I find a little
disturbing.

And this IS something I got my chops busted about earlier with what
seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact. I'll state it again
paraphrased:

The removal of the Morse code test is the removal of knowledge required
to get a ARS license. Thos who believe that less knowledge should be
necessary to get a license can only be heartened by this event. There
will be a move towards further reductions in the knowledge needed for a
license.

lessee he

(from

KL7CC:

One of the primary goals of the new license we are going to propose
is a true entry-level ticket. Limited power, limited frequencies,
but still useful, with enough of the essence of Amateur Radio to
attract beginners and show them what lies ahead when they upgrade.
Simpler exam. WAIT! - - WAIT! - - WHAT WAS THAT??!!

Yes, I said simpler exam. Hopefully 20 questions. Aimed at a young
person aged 12 or more. That means a 6th grade education. Also fits
teens, high schoolers, home schoolers. You know, fresh ideas, new
blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to
put on glasses – what a concept! 20 questions, simple enough to get
someone started in a responsible way, pointed in the right direction,
all that stuff.

Well what do we have here? A proposal for a simpler exam? Certainly
looks like it.

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Its even more charming that
this new, fresh blood will be able to see their radios without glasses.
I've worn glasses since I was in second grade.

One of the things that bugs me a little about that paper is the little digs it
tosses in - like that one. They're subtle but they convey an undertone of
insult.

I guess the

(authors of the KL7CC paper)

doesn't really want me to be a ham.

Nor me, nor a lot of us.

Next:

Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator� or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator�. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay
for
a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.

Exactly!

That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.

Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the
paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no “Morse code haters� on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan� from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!

and:

A few final words:

There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They
thought I needed "help".

At first I thought it was a joke - after all, the licensee still did all the
work of filling out the form and mailing it. If there was something wrong, FCC
would kick it right back - but the procedure for a simple renewal is so basic
that anyone who couldn't figure it out from the instructions on the form
probably shouldn't have the license anyway.

But I did some asking around and found it was real!
I wonder how many hams thought it was some sort of official letter and ponied
up the $5.

Instead, I filled out the form and sent it to FCC. And I swore W5YI would never
get a nickel from me.

And to make sure that they insult other hams who don't do things like
they think hams should do things:

Oh, pardon me – you always build everything from scratch? Great!
Who, exactly, are you going to talk to? Most of the rest of us opt
for the practical approach, and purchase a rig from one of the several
companies that cater to hams. If there are no manufacturers, then
there are no new rigs. Hard to carry on a QSO if no one is there.

What this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond me, except that I
think that they dont like homebrewers very much.

Ahem.

I'm very impressed that Morse code testing, by extrapolation, is going
to destroy the manufacturers. Talk about your conspiracies!!

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?

Who, me?

My final analysis of this piece is that the authors take a very
condescending and superior tone towards those they disagree with, take a
few gratuitous potshots at some other "outcasts" thay don't like, and
finally, support a radical simplification of the qualifications needed
to get on the air at HF frequencies.

and... and....

(last quote from the article):

Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments,
at least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time.
This may change in the future. Several countries no longer have
exclusive segments, but depend instead on voluntary band plans.
In fact, our 160-meter band works this way today, with surprisingly
few problems.

Ya gotta wonder how much time these dudes spend on 160.

LIB! there is is! the door is creaking open! here comes the foot.

Back to you Jim

It's the old incrementalism game. A little bit here, a little bit there.

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth
and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that
the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper
documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em
into 10
kHz and have fun.

Better yet, leave 'em alone.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from
what I can see.

The fact remains that the

(KL7CC)

paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that
the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).


[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]


Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl

are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

The wheels are already in motion.

They've been in motion for years and years. I put the change back about 1975.
No single change has been very big but the end result is enormous.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , David Stinson
writes:

N2EY wrote:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the
twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically
prepared.

I don't know... making "boogie men" out of the most intellectually
gifted, innovating and striving part of his population, then
spending huge amounts of money and resources to exterminate them-
that sounds like a pretty stupid move to me.

Right you are, sir! No argument from me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

No, no Dave. It's an enema, not an enigma. He needs to give himself an enema.


Dave K8MN

w3rv

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

No, no Dave. It's an enema, not an enigma. He needs to give himself an enema.


Dave K8MN

w3rv

You should leave that to the professionals - call in Robo-Nurse.

Brian Kelly wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Chuck von Klauswitz Jr) writes:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Then there's the Enigma story...

Gosh, you bigguys ought to switch chat room subjects to medicine.

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

No, no Dave. It's an enema, not an enigma. He needs to give himself an enema.

Darn! I always get those two words mixed up. I suppose I've misquoted
Churchill concerning Russia being wrapped in one of them.

Dave K8MN

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

You wouldn't be worried about enigmas. You'd be talking about
a pair-a-docs.

Why not give yourself an enigma, Len?

No, no Dave. It's an enema, not an enigma. He needs to give himself an enema.


Dave K8MN

w3rv

You should leave that to the professionals - call in Robo-Nurse.

If by some miracle The Putz did finally figure out how to give himself
an enema he's so full of it that when the enema did it's do he'd hit a
9.0 on the Richter scale and take out half of L.A. I really wouldn't
want Steve to be anywhere near that mess.

You however, being The Putz's apprentice boy . . .

w3rv