wrote:

Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?

Their bliss
over the efficacy of morsemanship shines
on under skies unclouded
by progress in technology...
which had already begun before they
got their first amateur license.

You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.

They BELIEVE deep in their
little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential
ingredient in
becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert,"
"well-rounded"
and a "leader" in amateurism.

And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len?

It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.

A few days ago, you wrote:

"3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S.
amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from
the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson

But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of
those who commented want at least some code testing. That
majority is almost identical to those supporting more than
one code test speed back in 1998.

Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago:

"That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and
accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson

A perfect lead-in to the following:

Must be wonderful to exist in such deep
delusions of grandeur,
very satisfying, off in a wonderland of
their own fantasies
of self-importance and Greatness. shrug

It's interesting that you will go on and on and on
about the motivations of people you've never met,
but you won't tell us *your* motivations for
changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Which is a radio service you are not involved in.

On 2 Nov 2005 15:01:08 -0800, wrote:

wrote:

Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?

what majority?


Their bliss
over the efficacy of morsemanship shines
on under skies unclouded
by progress in technology...
which had already begun before they
got their first amateur license.

You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.

so what you keep beating that dead horse it smells pretty bad by now


They BELIEVE deep in their
little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential
ingredient in
becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert,"
"well-rounded"
and a "leader" in amateurism.

And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len?

It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.

nice to see the ARRL can whip it some of it memebrs into a lather

and of course your logica is Flawed in suggesting that all Ham favor
coded extra oppose Code free general making the No code position
clearly the purality

and indeed the coded extra support just shows the foolish ness of the
Procode side

if there is any need for code testing at HF it applies to the general
as well as the Extras

so the Procode side merely shows itself as being for restriction whad
enough flushing the restN
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm


Dave Heil wrote:


That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number
of things in amateur radio. Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough
to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len
is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around
after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test.


James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley,
CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country").

Fine. I don't want to deflate his ego but when I saw a post from "RST
Engineering" signed "Jim", it meant nothing to me. I never heard of it
or him.


I've seen him on various r.r.a... groups for years.

That's you. I was writing about me. If the guy wants to play "maybe
you don't know who I am", I'm game. I didn't know who he was. Now that
I know, I don't much care. I don't have an airplane and don't live in
California.

Dave K8MN

You're welcome to let not knowing people define your presence on rrap.

Best of Luck.

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm



Dave Heil wrote:


That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number
of things in amateur radio. Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough
to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len
is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around
after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test.


James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley,
CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country").

Fine. I don't want to deflate his ego but when I saw a post from "RST
Engineering" signed "Jim", it meant nothing to me. I never heard of it
or him.


I've seen him on various r.r.a... groups for years.

That's you. I was writing about me. If the guy wants to play "maybe
you don't know who I am", I'm game. I didn't know who he was. Now that
I know, I don't much care. I don't have an airplane and don't live in
California.

You're welcome to let not knowing people define your presence on rrap.

Best of Luck.

I'm free to reject the implication that I'm supposed to know who "Jim"
"RST-Engineering" is. As Leonard H. Anderon pointed out, I have no
business in civil aviation and no business in California politics. I
like it that way.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
wrote:

Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

Their bliss
over the efficacy of morsemanship shines
on under skies unclouded
by progress in technology...
which had already begun before they
got their first amateur license.

You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.

That would make Len "unbiased."

They BELIEVE deep in their
little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential
ingredient in
becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert,"
"well-rounded"
and a "leader" in amateurism.

And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len?

That there is a God?

It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group.

The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.

Where did your numbers come from?

A few days ago, you wrote:

"3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S.
amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from
the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson

But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of
those who commented want at least some code testing. That
majority is almost identical to those supporting more than
one code test speed back in 1998.

Show your work.

Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago:

"That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and
accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson

A perfect lead-in to the following:

Must be wonderful to exist in such deep
delusions of grandeur,
very satisfying, off in a wonderland of
their own fantasies
of self-importance and Greatness. shrug

It's interesting that you will go on and on and on
about the motivations of people you've never met,
but you won't tell us *your* motivations for
changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Which is a radio service you are not involved in.

Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in"
amateur radio.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

That's not what I said.

I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the
Morse exam.

I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class
license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is
most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some
proficiency in Morse Code.

Their bliss
over the efficacy of morsemanship shines
on under skies unclouded
by progress in technology...
which had already begun before they
got their first amateur license.

You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.

That would make Len "unbiased."

No, it would not.

It VERY heavily predisposes Lennie to a specific view.

They BELIEVE deep in their
little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential
ingredient in
becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert,"
"well-rounded"
and a "leader" in amateurism.

And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len?

That there is a God

Is there? Really?

It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group.

Such as?

Seems everyone here, myself included, have expressed many different
ideas on a great many issues.

The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.

Where did your numbers come from?

The FCC via Lennie's previous posts.

Why?

A few days ago, you wrote:

"3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S.
amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from
the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson

But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of
those who commented want at least some code testing. That
majority is almost identical to those supporting more than
one code test speed back in 1998.

Show your work.

It's LENNIE'S Work, Brain...The number are fluid, of course, but
as of his last compilation, those numbers still come pretty close.

Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago:

"That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and
accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson

A perfect lead-in to the following:

Must be wonderful to exist in such deep
delusions of grandeur,
very satisfying, off in a wonderland of
their own fantasies
of self-importance and Greatness. shrug

It's interesting that you will go on and on and on
about the motivations of people you've never met,
but you won't tell us *your* motivations for
changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Which is a radio service you are not involved in.

Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in"
amateur radio.

No...A FEW people are.

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

[snip]

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

That's not what I said.

I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the
Morse exam.

I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class
license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is
most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some
proficiency in Morse Code.


I would disagree with this approach. Here's why.

Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic
ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. There
are two ways to get people to learn it. One, which is what we have now, is
to tie the most desired privilege (HF voice) to the subject that they least
desire to study. However there is a second way. Allow the novices and
techs CW privileges only on the General HF bands without any further
testing. They can have HF voice, digital, etc at any time they then pass
the whatever the test will be in the future for General. This gives them a
taste of HF. I would happily work them as slow as they want to go in order
to encourage the use of CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 1, 8:38 pm


wrote:

From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

RST Engineering wrote:



Now, lay YOURS out on the table and see who takes a knife to it.

That slipped my mind. Len has taken numerous shots at my Air Force
service in Vietnam, though he doesn't seem to know what it is that I did
there.

It's not what you did there. What you didn't do in Vietnam appears to
have defined your time there. You were a frustrated amateur in Vietnam
which caused you to under go a career change.

What DID Heil DO in Vietnam? He's never been anymore specific
than Dudly the Imposter (of the "seven hostile actions").

I see the sentence with my name in it. I see the sentence which follows
it. That is typical of your behavior.


Heil did NOT answer the question.

No, I didn't, did I? You routinely ignore questions asked of you.

Heil did NOT supply any
details of what he did with a MARS thing in Tan Son Nhut.

I knew of no MARS thing. I've stated here that I spent time operating a
MARS station in my off duty time.

Tsk, that too is "typical" of Heil's remarks in here. :-(

Tsk. If you'd like to find out more about USAF MARS operation in
Vietnam, feel free to search a few web sites, do a cut and paste job and
post a lengthy treatise on the subject as if it were your own work.
That'd be typical of your remarks in here. :-(


Damifino. Heil just hasn't been specifc about it. Can't
"take shots" at something invisible. :-)

Then again, you have already done so on a number of occasions. :-) :-)


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Heil have a guilty conscience?

Why would I have a guilty conscience over what you do?


Poor Davie has forgotten my quoting from the Army Center for
Military History which mentions the good morale service that
Army MARS did in Vietnam.

I've forgotten, have I? What're you, Madame Cleo?
I was never assigned to a MARS unit anywhere, anytime in the military.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Maybe Bob Hope never did a USO show at Tan
Son Nhut? :-)

Bob Hope? Did he operate a MARS station in his spare time?



I'm pretty certain that Len Anderson thinks he's somehow involved in
amateur radio too.


Pity the FCC then...they regulate and enforce ALL civil radio
in the United States, including amateur radio. Absolutely
none of the staff nor commissioners are required to be granted
any amateur radio license in order to regulate and enforce.

You keep confusing yourself with those paid to regulate amateur radio
and with those who participate in amateur radio. You're neither.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...I'm just trying to eliminate the morse code test
from United States amateur radio regulations.

You surely are. I saw all six of your submissions to the FCC on 05-235.
For what possible purpose have you fixated on morse code testing in
something in which you have no stake?

According to the
United States Constitution (First Amendment), all citizens have
the RIGHT to free speech in the USA.

A RIGHT isn't the same as an OBLIGATION. You spoke six time more than I
on 05-235. Are you supposed to be more entitled to speak?



Just the same, the 8235th Army Unit (that I was in) never
allowed any Tokyo territory to fall into communist hands! :-)
At the same time, that same battalion of signalmen were
moving message "traffic" at the rate of 220 thousand a month
over the Army Command and Administrative Network (later
integrated into the DCS or Defense Communications System),
a worldwide network. All with TTY. Not a single morse code
link in that system since 1948.

It took an entire battalion of signalmen to do that, Len? All this
time, I was under the impression that you did it all by yourself.


Tsk, tsk. Davie can't "impress" people as he wishes.

Tskity tasket. You created the impression.

I've never said what you think I did. I explained it several
times...but your mind can't grasp that, can it?

I explained that station ADA was operating "24/7" meaning (in
colloquial use) around-the-clock, every day of the week. You
said that "was never done." It was.

A Google search will review that you've been less than truthful. You
maintained that *you*, Leonard H. Anderson, had worked 24/7. You
didn't. Nobody can work 24/7. Would you like to see your words again,
in the interests of clarity?

It was done on a FAR
LARGER scale than any MARS facility anywhere. ADA did carry
MARS TTY traffic on a second-priority basis when the primary
circuit wasn't busy.

Why are you suddenly fixated on MARS traffic?

I explained the RESPONSIBILITY of team leaders in keeping the
transmitters up and operating, one part of the entire operation,
but you insist on word-twisting to suit your savage beast
within that wants to fight.

Were you a team leader, Len? Are you still claiming that you worked 24
hours per day, seven days per week in any single week at any time, anywhere?

All you wish to do is denigrate
anyone who did MORE in REAL HF radio than you did. Tsk, tsk.

Do you believe that you have more experience in HF radio operation than
I? Tsk, tsk and a couple of poor baby's thrown in.

James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley,
CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country").

Fine. I don't want to deflate his ego but when I saw a post from "RST
Engineering" signed "Jim", it meant nothing to me. I never heard of it
or him.


Tsk, tsk. Jim Weir has posted in here for several years.

Funny, I don't remember seeing a post from "RST Engineering" until quite
recently.

That YOU didn't notice that is not my concern.

No, it isn't. So tell me, why are you concerning yourself with it?

YOU seem to "notice" only those posts where you can engage
in word fights with your "opponents." Down, big warrior.

If what you've stated is correct, then how'd I get into exchange with
somebody named Jim Weir, whom you've said I didn't notice?


He ran for
Governor of California, had his picture in the L.A. Times as one
of many candidates. [a former Austrian citizen won the election]

No doubt Jim's charm, as evidence here, was a factor.


Davie said, sarcasm dripping down his chin like alien slime...

Davie? Well, Lennie, my comment was meant to be sarcastic. I don't
know anything about alien slime though. That's quite an active
imagination you have.



I sent Jim Weir one of my computer programs (LCie4, synthesis and
analysis of passive-component inductor-capacitor filters) and he
stated that this (freeware) program has been used by his students
(successfully) in Grass Valley. We had some brief e-mail exchages
that resulted in my modifying the older LCie program to fit the
DOS 7 in newer Windows. LCie was written in MS FORTRAN 5.1 but on
an earlier operating system and that (now unsupported by MS)
FORTRAN did not have the compiler links to fit DOS 7. LCie4 runs
only under DOS, doesn't have the flash, dash, or pizazz of color
Windows but is nonetheless accurate and proven. It is freeware
to anyone requesting it...something I mentioned in rec.radio.
amateur.homebrew some time ago.

That's nice.


Damn straight.

I don't know if it is straight. I said, "that's nice".

LCie4 IS a very nice program for quickly and
accurately synthesizing (designing) and analyzing a passive L-C
filter of lowpass, highpass, bandpass, or bandstop configuration.
The user can optionally change component values, modify Q of
inductors or capacitors, do printouts of schematics or analysis
results (or store them in a file), analyze input and output
impedances in lieu of normal decibel insertion loss, phase change,
or group delay. It's been proven in real hardware results that
came out exactly as predicted.

I see--and anytime anyone tells you, "that's nice", you have to describe
it in further detail?

RST Engineering makes some neat electronics for general aviation
aircraft. RST has a nice website if anyone cares to look.

I looked at the web site. It isn't particularly nice. If one orders
online, the payment information isn't even sent securely.


You aren't involved in general aviation. You have NO business
with general aviation let alone private flying. Why are YOU
being critical of something you aren't even close to being
involved in?

You just told us that the firm has a nice web site if any cared to look
at it? Was your comment insincere? At you suggestion, I went and
looked at it. I gave you my opinion. The site isn't slick or glitzy
and it doesn't offer secure ordering. All in all, it looks rather
homemade.

Why are YOU being critical of someone else's website to ME?

Why did you suggest that we go look at it if you weren't prepared for
comments?

You don't even live in California. You have NO business with
any California elections of any kind. Why do you give a ****
of any elections of governors in California or state politics?

You're right. I don't live in California and don't have any business in
its state elections. You're the one who brought the subject up. Why
are you posting the stuff in r.r.a.p. ?


One
of the neat things they do is what I would term "SURFACE MOUNT
VHF antennas" for aircraft fabric surfaces. :-) Neat! They
don't stick out in the airstream and thus have minimal drag.
[international civil aviation band is 108 to 137 MHz]

I've not noted many fabric surfaces on the aircraft I've seen in recent
decades.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. There are tens of thousands of general aviation
aircraft having "fabric" covering in United States registry
alone.

The low end stuff, huh? That's ancient technology, Len.

That YOU "haven't seen them" doesn't mean they exist.

Right. It's sort of like the details of my service in Vietnam. Just
because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

In a half hour's drive from my residence, I can go to two major
airports and one air park that have well over a thousand such
"fabric" covered aircraft.

Well, I'll be darned. I don't have to put up with all that noise.

You said nothing about "surface mounting," indicating you are
unable to perceive any humor (as in "SMD" now the common method
of electronics hardware construction) or the fact that MOST of
a general aviation aircraft structure UNDER the skin is largely
empty.

That's real rib-tickling stuff, Len. If the engineering stuff starts to
peter out, you might consider a career as a retired (from regular hours)
standup comic. That surface mount stuff should slay an audience.

Any antenna can thus be mounted on the surface of a
non-conductive skin and be largely unaffected on characteristics
in that position.

Really? Let me write all this stuff down for future reference. Does
that mean I could enclose an antenna in fibreglas or PVC? Could I mount
such an antenna in an attic? What'll they think of next?

Rather basic EM theory involved there, but
meaningless to those who will not bother to think about basic
radio theory.

I can see that those who don't bother to think about basic radio theory
might have problems grasping the concept.


Thanks for providing the information on the aircraft band.
Perhaps nobody here knew where the band could be found.


YOU have NO BUSINESS with general aviation concerns, are NOT
INVOLVED.

Does this mean I'll have to sell my scanner?

It is no surprise that those who are NOT INVOLVED
would be ignorant of technical details.

A spread of frequencies is a technical detail?

Amateur radio is NOT
INVOLVED with the international civil aviation band in VHF or
the specific frequencies for that in the HF spectrum.

By George, I think you may have a point. Why are you writing about it
here then?

If you have any more questions, don't be afraid to show your
ignorance. You haven't yet.

I realize that I haven't shown it yet. Thanks for the kudos.

Keep plugging along with that copy of "Now Your Talking", old timer.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 15:01:08 -0800, wrote:


wrote:


Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?


what majority?

Where've you been? Did you miss the news about the hurricanes and
Scooter Libby's indictment too?

Their bliss
over the efficacy of morsemanship shines
on under skies unclouded
by progress in technology...
which had already begun before they
got their first amateur license.

You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.


so what you keep beating that dead horse it smells pretty bad by now

Yep, Len's carcass is beginning to stink up the joint after that "Extra
right out of the box" comment.


They BELIEVE deep in their
little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential
ingredient in
becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert,"
"well-rounded"
and a "leader" in amateurism.

And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len?


It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.


nice to see the ARRL can whip it some of it memebrs into a lather

Is it your opinion that the ARRL told its membership what view to take
in commenting on the 05-235 issue?

and of course your logica is Flawed in suggesting that all Ham favor
coded extra oppose Code free general making the No code position
clearly the purality

What is clear is that you comprehend what Jim wrote.

and indeed the coded extra support just shows the foolish ness of the
Procode side

I know it'll be a stretch, but do you think you could tell us what
thought processes took place in your formulation of such a view?

if there is any need for code testing at HF it applies to the general
as well as the Extras

Good idea, Mark.

so the Procode side merely shows itself as being for restriction whad
enough flushing the restN

Let's see if I have this correct: The procode testing side is for
restriction whad enough flushing the rest? Can that be what you meant
to convey?

Dave K8MN

From: on Nov 2, 4:38 pm


wrote:
wrote:

Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599
filings on the FCC ECFS
under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005),
I'm convinced
that way too many radio amateurs are still
stuck to the glorious
past of a half century ago in radio communications.

Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you?

Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him
"progressive."

Robeson is still nuts, but maybe "progressively" nuts.

Jimmie is a whining little crybaby who loves to engage in
word "food fights" about minutae. In any other venue this
would be HECKLING.

Both are growing ALIKE in behavior. Scary thought, ey?

Jimmie thinks he knows ALL about long-time-ago radio. Thing is,
he did NOT work in radio a half century ago. I did. But,
Jimmie has READ a LOT about long-time-ago radio and must think
he "knows" about it...just like he "knows" all about military
life and how it feels to be geographically close to unfriendlies
during the Cold War.

There have now been 3,687 filings on WT Docket 05-235 at the FCC.
That is, very roughly, only 1% of all U.S. licensees including
or excluding those in their grace period. Statistically, that
small number would be rather marginal for any REAL determination
of either minority or majority.

However, from the TEXT of those who are against the NPRM, it is
rather obvious that the MAJORITY of THOSE are still stuck in
the morse myths and standards-practices in amateur radio of
the 1930s. Some of those believe they are engaging in some
kind of "service to their nation" by their ham radio hobby.

[the FCC uses the word "service" as a regulatory term, denoting
a type and kind of radio being regulated...such as Citizens
Band Radio SERVICE]


You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len.

That would make Len "unbiased."

Irrelevant to Jimmie. Jimmie NEVER operated any HF
transmitter in the 1950s. Jimmie NEVER got any FCC
license in that time. I did both. [First 'Phone in
1956 at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, one sitting,
no retries and passed]

Us readers do NOT know for sure whether or not Jimmie EVER
worked in ANY radio service OTHER than amateur radio. He
won't say in public. Jimmie hasn't admitted that all radio
works by the SAME laws of physics. Since that is established
fact, the distinction between 'amateur' and any other kind or
type of radio is solely an adminstrative differentiation by
a radio regulating agency. Jimmie wants to make amateur radio
technology/operation somehow SPAY-SHUL and "more advanced"
than any commercial or military radio. The Church Lady is
in fine form...

secular discussion omitted as not pertinent to "score cards"


It's a Belief so deep, so basic,
that they are convinced that ALL morsemen
are "experts" on
everything and those who don't Believe
as they do are heretics
who know nothing about everything.

Sounds like sour grapes on your part.

Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group.

Sounds like ALL the pro-morse persons in here with the
exception of Hans Brakob.


The actual count of individuals commenting showed that
once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed,
55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code
test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its
complete removal of Morse Code testing.

Where did your numbers come from?

Probably from that "Secret Source" of his that he will NOT name.

Robeson still hasn't produced his "secret source" on the ex-
NADC person who supposedly did a "performance review" of my
assignment there for RCA Corporation in 1971. [NO such
"review" was ever done on contractor-visitor personnel]

Jimmie KNOWS things mo' bettah than anyone. Sigh.


But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of
those who commented want at least some code testing. That
majority is almost identical to those supporting more than
one code test speed back in 1998.

Show your work.

He will NOT. All must "show their work" to HIM if HE
requests it.

Jimmie's numbers are "accurate" by definition...of Jimmie.
None may question that. [if they do, he goes into long,
long, long, lonnnnng posts 'challenging' minutae in
everything the challenger has said]



It's interesting that you will go on and on and on
about the motivations of people you've never met,
but you won't tell us *your* motivations for
changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Which is a radio service you are not involved in.

Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in"
amateur radio.

Irrelevant to Jimmie or any other PCTA in here. They haven't
looked at the FCC budget figures showing how many work there.

Jimmie is still stuck in "fraternal" concepts of rule. He
apparently doesn't understand that a single federal agency
regulates ALL of U.S. civil radio (i.e., non-government,
non-military). The Laws of Congress (Communications Act of
1934, Telecommunications Act of 1996) have NOT required
ANYONE in the FCC to hold amateur radio license grants.

Jimmie and the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) think
they are a "law" unto themselves. Bless the ARRL for
continuing reinforcement of that conditioned thinking.
Want to GET INTO amateur radio? Follow the 'rule' of the
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society and test for beeping.
No beep, no get into HF ham bands. Gosh, and they did NOT
tell the Army about that a half century ago!

The fraternal order doesn't want non-beepers dirtying up
their private sandbox. Their sand is elite. But their
sand is also sometimes used for kitty litter.

Beep, beep