On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:08 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote in
oups.com:

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

Proof:

You actually expected him to be able to differentiate between "has the
power to" and "is forced to"?

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:08 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote in
oups.com:

according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS
unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution

I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect
for that document

Proof:

You actually expected him to be able to differentiate between "has the
power to" and "is forced to"?
the Govt lacks the power to test anymore if chalanced it it only had
the power while it was forced by the treaty

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

BH

Brian Hill wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.
Indeed I understand the points of the CW crwod but I simply reject the
ntotions that merits of CW merit the strangle hold it has

after all I can do even EME without knowing a BIT of Morse did so last
night

BH

"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but
it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once
it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out &
clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Brian Hill" wrote in :


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter.

Ahh...but I did, once

But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once.

proving that one has little to do with the other.

And that you have little to do with this conversation.

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but
it's just the sign of the times.

BH


We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once
it's all the way in the ****ter it will be even harder to pull back out &
clean up.

A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept
more dumbing down.


Help save Ham radio:


1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class every ten years.


No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio and
there is no reason to think it would improve things.


2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Might be OK.


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the
politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.

Dee Flint wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...


3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way.


4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.


Probably wouldn't make any difference.
certainly would but then you are into killing the ars of course


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the
politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.
ask Carl Stevenson about that one

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve
things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB.


Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in
the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want.


You're most likely correct on getting into the "politics" of the ARRL to
"try" to get anywhere. But, good luck. It is more like a "good ole boys
club". Anytime I've ever seen any reps to the area at a hamfest - they acted
like snobs more than trying to communicate with hams of their concerns OR to
try to win those hams who weren't members - to become members. If the rep
couldn't give me the time of day, the ARRL didn't need my money either. I
stopped my membership when it was due for renewal. That was a good 15 years
ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was
with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention
and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid
you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR
ARRL REP HERE"

lou

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote:

You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone
sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's
just the sign of the times.

The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be
able to put it on the air immediately.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be
able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's
initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the
real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license.