K=D8HB wrote:
Uh oh...no "73"...And it was looking so promising
for a few moments there...

Steve, K4YZ

Nope, no "73". That went away when you saw fit to personalize the
conversation
with disparaging ad hominem remarks unrelated to the topic, and to
bring
uninvolved family members into the conversation.

Well...there YOU go stretching things for the sake of creating yet
another adverse thread, Hans...Guess it's useless trying to give that
which you feel others should take.

Nothing "ad hominem" was intended...Just some friendly ribbing and
a sincere "hello" to your other half since YOU have brought her up in
at least three other on-going threads, Hans.

But then I guess YOU are the only one who can be sincere,
Hans...?!?!

Sheeesh.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Hamguy" wrote in message
...

: http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689

That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement.

Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for
General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed
Extra
class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to
resurrected
Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the
ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied.

All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may
be
out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will
obviously
contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18
restructuring petitions.

Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then
a
reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer.
Probably
the end of 2005 before comments close.

This is based on what FCC has done in the past.

Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order.
Last
time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall
2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective -
maybe end of 2006.

Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I
wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be
surprised if it were summer 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You're being a Jonah again, Jim.

Hello Alun,

I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah".

Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the whale
- aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"?

the announcement guesstimates all done
within a year, i.e. by spring '06.

So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005).

Sounds about right to me. Granted that
the comments about what the FCC might do (and the title of the post)
were
all the poster's own, and not Hamwave's.

Exactly.

My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a
number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change the
rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure, over
21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the street
yet.

My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the code
test
and rearrange some subbands around this time next year. That's still
much
longer than I originally thought.

My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that the
code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet.

I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped Element
1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the rest.
They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would take
is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed thoroughly
back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the treaty.
Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such
verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure for
such changes.

Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and
comments.

Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what -
six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the Report
and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed.
That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months from
summer 2005 is spring 2007.

Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:

If you don't have room for good food then
you don't have room for junk.

Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe
you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"!

Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.

One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering
(she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing
it commercially).

Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat
and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of
what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the
crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not
suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round.

Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like
the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is
simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so
(sometimes I fail miserably).

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up their
conservative minds with any such heresy. Besides, if you haven't time to
learn Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food.
Clean up those green beans too, before you go study your code.

73, de Hans, K0HB
(My kids think I'm a real "mother"!)



It's self preservation actually. I have a real weakness for sweets and
can't stand the artificial stuff so my best bet is to bypass the stuff.
That's why I never keep this stuff at home.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

KØHB wrote:

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to study the theory either.

Was there anything incorrect or inaccurate in Dee's statement?

Dave K8MN

No, and of course neither did I say there was.

It's a perfectly accurate statement, just like the following similar
statements:

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to take a shower either.

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to bathe the dog either.

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to mow the lawn either.

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to snuggle with your
spouse either.

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to eat dessert either.

Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes
per day, you don't have time to play baseball with
the neighborhood kids either.

Just think of all the things you'd have time to do, if you'd just have
learned Morse code and gotten it out of the way! It's a wonder
everyone doesn't know Morse code, so they'd have time to to the things
they really WANTED to do!

Those would all be swell if the object wasn't to obtain an HF amateur
radio license.

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:31:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:

Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like
the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is
simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so
(sometimes I fail miserably).

As the old Ross Bagdasarian/Rosemary Cloony song of the late '40s
went: "C'mon a' my house, my house, I'm gonna' give you candy...."

That's why she's a specialist......the "store-bought" stuff can't
make it, and the sweetener used in most of those products (Sorbitol
or Manitol) is colloquialy known as "Laxitol".

Since the commercial sweetener Sucralose went "retail" under the
name of "Splenda" it's a lot easier to get the right taste.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.


How did "refined sugar" enter the conversation? Clearly you need to broaden
your culinary horizons!

Tell me of your desserts?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Tell me of your desserts?


Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Phil Kane wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:


If you don't have room for good food then
you don't have room for junk.


Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe
you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"!


Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes.


One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering
(she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing
it commercially).

Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat
and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of
what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the
crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not
suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round.

Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar.


Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some
sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters.
Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

K=D8HB wrote:

Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up
their
conservative minds with any such heresy. Besides, if you haven't
time to learn
Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food.
Clean up
those green beans too, before you go study your code.

73, de Hans, K0HB
(My kids think I'm a real "mother"!)

Or push back from the table a little earlier than usual before having a
photo taken in a flight suit.