Dee Flint wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.


[snip]


However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

That's not what I said, Dee...

I said that non-Morse tested licesees shouldn't be allowed to
operate in areas where voice modes are not permitted.

There is a difference.

If the FCC is going to drop the code
requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed the
privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to be
familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus to
know that you should go find another.

But you need to be able to be able to inquire as to the use of the
frequency, etc. Just because I tune to 14.0xxMhz and not hear anything
for a minute or so does NOT mean the frequency isn't being used.

If they elect to go Code/Extra-NoCode/General, then we should
consider some band plan allowances to give the NCG's a place to
practice away from the skilled users. However that can be done on a
"Gentleperson's Agreement" (notice the PC there...?!?!?!) , not a new
"Novice" class license.

73

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Thurs 4 Aug 2005 09:14


K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?

73

KMA

Uh huh.

About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much
substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc
etc.

if by that you mean that some folks like myself will not allow you to
control the newsgroup then of course you are right

Stebie has a terrible NEED to control others and acts like all
his diagreers are the Antichrist, spawn of satan, or evil
incarnate come to bedevil HIM, the DILL Instructor of this
murine corpse. :-)

Like the Dems, he thinks he's in control....(can't even control his own
impulses).

I love Stebie's opening "salutation" to the FCC on WT Docket
05-235:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

Geez, Stebie is giving a SPEECH for an assembled group! :-)

He steps up to the podium, adjusts the microphone, takes a
sip of water, opens his speech text copy notebook and beings
to SPEAK! [poor guy didn't get any thunderous applause when
he was finished...snif, snif...]

Welp, he've been saying since the last millenium that he's
delusional...

At 445 12th St. S.W. in DC is someone at a desk, using a
workstation, pulling down incoming Comments on WT Docket
05-235 at an average rate of about 52 a day...and Stebie
thinks he is making a SPEECH! Gotta love the immense EGO
on the DILL Instructor with the askew campaign hat. Like
the FCC folks love "getting SPOKEN to?" :-)

Steve has the ability to make friends wherever he goes. NOT!

If Bill Cross had the FCC making a decision contrary to what
Stebie wants, Stebie would probably yell "Get down and gimme
ten!" at him. :-)

Ve are all Putzes in da ghetto while Stebie is up on the roof
vid his fiddle, playing while his mind burns. Shalom!

oye veh


Whatta kook.

K4YZ wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.


[snip]


However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

That's not what I said, Dee...

you don't the shoe on other feet

I said that non-Morse tested licesees shouldn't be allowed to
operate in areas where voice modes are not permitted.

There is a difference.

and in that defference, you would (if the FCC was fool enough to listen
to you) laid the groundwork for you and others to whine" why don't
these new folks do the digital modes they promised"



If the FCC is going to drop the code
requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed the
privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to be
familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus to
know that you should go find another.

But you need to be able to be able to inquire as to the use of the
frequency, etc. Just because I tune to 14.0xxMhz and not hear anything
for a minute or so does NOT mean the frequency isn't being used.

right (where are the men in white suits?) Indeed I'd hope it is being
used somewhere (but that might to too hopeful on my part) but it enough
to make it a good bet that freq is not in use where this operator is
working from, which is all that matters

If as I am sure happens the poor fellows keys up sending RTTY or PSK31
and steps on one he could not hear then that is of course too bad, but
if he could not hear them he could not hear them, testing him for morse
code first will not improve his hearing


If they elect to go Code/Extra-NoCode/General, then we should
consider some band plan allowances to give the NCG's a place to
practice away from the skilled users. However that can be done on a
"Gentleperson's Agreement" (notice the PC there...?!?!?!) , not a new
"Novice" class license.

they will elect

delusional again stevie

73

Steve, K4YZ

b.b. wrote:
wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Thurs 4 Aug 2005 09:14


K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

cut
Steve has the ability to make friends wherever he goes. NOT!

not true BB he does have the ability to make friends where ever he
goes, he has made me several in Tennese last time I got a good 6m
opening to there, I heard some of the chating about anaying over
bearing extras, stevies call came indeed one hams said of him and I
quote (stevie)... "is Papa Oscar Serria"

we laughed and he made me a friend

If Bill Cross had the FCC making a decision contrary to what
Stebie wants, Stebie would probably yell "Get down and gimme
ten!" at him. :-)

Ve are all Putzes in da ghetto while Stebie is up on the roof
vid his fiddle, playing while his mind burns. Shalom!

oye veh


Whatta kook.

"K4YZ" wrote in message
ps.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.


[snip]


However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

That's not what I said, Dee...

I said that non-Morse tested licesees shouldn't be allowed to
operate in areas where voice modes are not permitted.

There is a difference.


Yes I do see the difference. May I suggest clarifying that in your
comments. i.e. They can operate code in the areas they have voice
privileges but that there be an "exclusive" section for those who are code
tested.

If the FCC is going to drop the code
requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed
the
privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to
be
familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus
to
know that you should go find another.

But you need to be able to be able to inquire as to the use of the
frequency, etc. Just because I tune to 14.0xxMhz and not hear anything
for a minute or so does NOT mean the frequency isn't being used.


Technically we have the same problem today in some modes. If I want to
operate on a "RTTY frequency" with some other mode (although I wouldn't do
so), I cannot currently use RTTY to ask if the frequency is in use.

Besides, if they are going to try to operate code, they will have studied it
some and it won't be a major issue although it will happen now and then. In
addition, the way for them to get better is to have the chance to
communicate with the experienced.

If they elect to go Code/Extra-NoCode/General, then we should
consider some band plan allowances to give the NCG's a place to
practice away from the skilled users. However that can be done on a
"Gentleperson's Agreement" (notice the PC there...?!?!?!) , not a new
"Novice" class license.


I do NOT like the "Politically Correct" results of butchering the language.
People are putting the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. If one studies
the development of the English language, the term and suffix "man"
originally simply meant human being. Females were "women" and males were
"wermen". Instead of butchering the language perhaps we should resurrect
the male prefix "wer-"?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

K4YZ:

You only need sit back and see what the Chicken Banders will want when
they get here. I think their numbers will rather quickly put ancient hams
in the back seat...

I expect them to provide a whole different course to the direction of
amateur radio, no one here will probably be able to guess how that is
going to develop...

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 08:16:21 -0700, K4YZ wrote:


Dee Flint wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.


[snip]


However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

That's not what I said, Dee...

I said that non-Morse tested licesees shouldn't be allowed to
operate in areas where voice modes are not permitted.

There is a difference.

If the FCC is going to drop the code
requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed the
privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to be
familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus to
know that you should go find another.

But you need to be able to be able to inquire as to the use of the
frequency, etc. Just because I tune to 14.0xxMhz and not hear anything
for a minute or so does NOT mean the frequency isn't being used.

If they elect to go Code/Extra-NoCode/General, then we should
consider some band plan allowances to give the NCG's a place to
practice away from the skilled users. However that can be done on a
"Gentleperson's Agreement" (notice the PC there...?!?!?!) , not a new
"Novice" class license.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

Actually, the converse exists today. There are Morse code only
segments of 6m and 2m, and no code techs could operate
there (using Morse code). So why not for CW segments of HF?

John Smith wrote:

K4YZ:

You only need sit back and see what the Chicken Banders will want when
they get here. I think their numbers will rather quickly put ancient hams
in the back seat...


Those chicken banders still have to take the written tests.
I doubt that many are prepared to pass.

As for the newbies making dumb mistakes, well, newbies
will make mistakes. Most will learn. Everyone was a
newbie once...

robert casey wrote:

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

Actually, the converse exists today. There are Morse code only
segments of 6m and 2m, and no code techs could operate
there (using Morse code). So why not for CW segments of HF?

because that is not how the process of making regs is suposed to work.
to make a reg you need, in theory, a why, not a why not

an old friend wrote:
b.b. wrote:
wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Thurs 4 Aug 2005 09:14


K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

cut
Steve has the ability to make friends wherever he goes. NOT!

not true BB he does have the ability to make friends where ever he
goes, he has made me several in Tennese last time I got a good 6m
opening to there, I heard some of the chating about anaying over
bearing extras, stevies call came indeed one hams said of him and I
quote (stevie)... "is Papa Oscar Serria"

we laughed and he made me a friend


Why am I not suprised?

I always figured he was out of control in many aspects of his life.
Yet, he always maintained that he doesn't act on the air like he does
here on RRAP. If that were true, he would be two-faced, which wouldn't
suprise me. But to have it confirmed that he's Pappa Oscar Sierra on
the air is a hoot. Thanks.