Dave Heil wrote:
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

Yet I was supposed to know who a guy was who posted in here a couple of
times.

You'se guys sure do hang on to that PCTA double-standard.

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

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


Yet I was supposed to know who a guy was who posted in here a couple of
times.

You'se guys sure do hang on to that PCTA double-standard.

I have no idea who or what you've written about. I'm not going to play
guessing games with you.

Dave K8MN

K4YZ wrote:
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.

It's what CQ magazine said that you said.

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

You did use a couple of double negatives to disallow non code-tested
hams access to narrowband operations.

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.

CQ didn't indicate that.

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.

He has no vested interest in Amateur Radio.

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?

Is there?

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.

Your ideas are usually summed up with, "putz, liar, deceit, coward,
dialing..."

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?

Did Jim check Len's work?

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.

So Jim just takes Len's work and posts it as his own, without even
checking the validity of it?

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

No license required to have an opinion wrt amateur radio. No license
required to enforce amateur radio rules. No license required to
restructure the ARS. No license required to drop the morse code exam.

And that's the way it is.

Dee Flint wrote:

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.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

Thanks a lot

wrote:
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.

Yep.

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

"Dialing..."

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

In the amateur radio literature from one amateur radio publication
house.

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.

Did he get his "Cold War" certificate?

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.

See my reply to Dee about communicators needing morse code.

[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]

Correct.

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]

But, but, but...

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...

The government doesn't want morse code in "thier" radio services.

secular discussion omitted as not pertinent to "score cards"

Fair enough.

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.

Hans has long advocated eliminating the morse code tests and limiting
license classes to two; Unlimited and Learner Permit.

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.

He is always the victor in any discussion, um, errr, I meant argument.

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.

Except his "moon distance" numbers. In all fairness, he might have
been referring to any one of Jupiter's moons.

None may question that. [if they do, he goes into long,
long, long, lonnnnng posts 'challenging' minutae in
everything the challenger has said]

The Steve shows up and everything is lies, Lies, LIES!

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.

And the ones who do should have "thier" licenses held in abeyence
during their term in government just so there is no conflict of
interest.

Jimmie and the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) think
they are a "law" unto themselves. Bless the ARRL for
continuing reinforcement of that conditioned thinking.

I'll have to look up that new guy who came on here several years ago
singing the praises of the Morse Code that he was -going- to learn. He
was the darling of the group, all PCTA fawning all over him. I looked
up his call about a year ago - still a no code. Wonder what "rank" he
hold today?

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!

Something for nothing.

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



bb

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..
(SNIP)
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.

That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the
basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..
(SNIP)
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.

That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the
basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I have no problem with that. In each case, we have both identified that as
being our personal opinions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

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.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

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.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.

But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time
and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't
want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL
with on the low end of the bands.

PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and
NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better."

They are special. But when all become special, none are.

They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar...



They were born 100 years too late.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16


Dee Flint wrote:

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.

Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of
learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio
stations at their own expense?

...just because...

There's got to be some deeper motive.


There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on
my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to
comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to
my opinion just like any one else.

Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio
users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and
emergency responders.

If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they
should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them.

Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to
any emergency/crisis/disaster.

If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond
first.


Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there,
was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts. I
am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups
standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed.
However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was
discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to
distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long
ago.

I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt
his statements. Investigate for yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE