ARS License Numbers
N2EY
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
As of May 14, 2000:
Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792
As of February 28, 2003:
Novice - 35,264 (decrease of 14,065)
Tech - 250,573 (increase of 45,179)
Tech Plus - 88,477 (decrease of 57,457)
General - 140,170 (increase of 27,493)
Advanced - 84,019 (decrease of 15,763)
Extra - 103,550 (increase of 24,800)
Total - 684,979 (increase of 10,187)
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dwight Stewart
>
> As of February 28, 2003:
>
> Novice - 35,264 (decrease of 14,065)
> Tech - 250,573 (increase of 45,179)
> Tech Plus - 88,477 (decrease of 57,457)
> General - 140,170 (increase of 27,493)
> Advanced - 84,019 (decrease of 15,763)
> Extra - 103,550 (increase of 24,800)
> Total - 684,979 (increase of 10,187)
Wow, where are all those Novice and Tech Plus license holders going? If
you subtract the Advanced decrease from the Extra increase (assuming all
upgraded), that leaves only 9037 license holders coming from the other
license classes to Extra. Add that to the General increase (again assuming
all upgraded), that means that only 36,530 Novice to Tech Plus could have
possibly upgraded. Yet we see a decrease of 71,522 license holders just
between the Novice and Tech Plus alone. And, of course, you have to assume
that some Techs upgraded, which means that even more Novice and Tech Plus
license holders have slipped out.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Carl R. Stevenson
now ... so some of the Tech Plus probably upgraded, while
others simply renewed, contributing to the increase in Techs.
Carl - wk3c
"Dwight Stewart" <ste...@say.net> wrote in message
news:BA876A43.11C6E%ste...@say.net...
N2EY
writes:
>"N2EY" wrote:
>>
>> As of February 28, 2003:
>>
>> Novice - 35,264 (decrease of 14,065)
>> Tech - 250,573 (increase of 45,179)
>> Tech Plus - 88,477 (decrease of 57,457)
>> General - 140,170 (increase of 27,493)
>> Advanced - 84,019 (decrease of 15,763)
>> Extra - 103,550 (increase of 24,800)
>> Total - 684,979 (increase of 10,187)
>
>
> Wow, where are all those Novice and Tech Plus license holders going?
Several places:
- As Carl points out, since April 15, 2000, all Tech Pluses who renew become
Techs.
- Some are upgrading to General or Extra. And Novices who pass Element 2 (only)
get a Tech, not a Tech Plus.
- Some are license expirations and cancellations. Of the expirations, some will
renew in the grace period.
>If
>you subtract the Advanced decrease from the Extra increase (assuming all
>upgraded),
Bad assumption. The attrition rate due to expirations can be considerable.
>that leaves only 9037 license holders coming from the other
>license classes to Extra. Add that to the General increase (again assuming
>all upgraded), that means that only 36,530 Novice to Tech Plus could have
>possibly upgraded. Yet we see a decrease of 71,522 license holders just
>between the Novice and Tech Plus alone. And, of course, you have to assume
>that some Techs upgraded, which means that even more Novice and Tech Plus
>license holders have slipped out.
Your models are oversimplified, Dwight. Expirations and cancellations are
considerable, and Tech-Plus-renewal-as-Tech even more of a factor.
You may want to consider the following comparisons:
Novice+Tech+TechPlus total changes since restructuring
Tech+TechPlus total changes since restructuring
both in absolute numbers and percentages.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Len Over 21
<wk3...@wk3c.com> writes:
>Remember, Tech Plus is being renewed as just plain Tech
>now ... so some of the Tech Plus probably upgraded, while
>others simply renewed, contributing to the increase in Techs.
Carl, Had it not been for the Technician class license
creation over a dozen years ago, US amateur radio
licensees would have DECREASED in number now by
over one hundred thousand. The vast majority of US
amateur radio license increases in the last dozen years
came about through the Technician class. Novice class
licensees had been continuously dropping in that same
time. PCTAs cannot see that...they see only what they
want to see and that is the OLD ways, the way They did
it in their long-ago youth.
More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
This browns off the PCTAs no end since they desperately
need to regain their self-imposed titles of "King of the Hill"
in the OLD class structure of US ham radio. PCTAs are
outraged by this because their entire fantasyland mental
picture of amateur radio has evaporated. They cannot stand
reality and have lost their mental anchor in the safe harbor
of morse mythology. Pity them.
Bert Craig
news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
> in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter pares?" I
sure don't. The no-code Tech ticket is available to anyone who wishes to
become a licensed ARO without the "hassle" of the code, hence...no "barrier"
to AR.
> This browns off the PCTAs no end since they desperately
> need to regain their self-imposed titles of "King of the Hill"
> in the OLD class structure of US ham radio.
What's a PCTA?
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
Dave Heil
Len's opponent in civil debate over the morse code testing non-issue.
Dave K8MN
N2EY
radio in the past 30 years or so. All numbers are rounded off but are accurate
to within 2%. Sources are various Callbooks and US census data.:
US Hams:
1970: 270,000
1980: 350,000
1990: 514,000
2000: 680,000
Growth Rate:
1970 to 1980: 29.6% (120,000 net growth)
1980 to 1990: 46.8% (164,000 net growth)
1990 to 2000: 32.2% (166,000 net growth)
Oddly enough, percentage growth slowed down after the introduction of code test
waivers and the Tech lost its code test. The total net growth in the '90s was
almost exactly the same as in the '80s, even though the US population was
larger.
As a percentage of the total US population:
Year - US population/annual growth - US hams - % hams
1970: 203 million 270,000 0.133%
1980: 227 million 350,000 0.154%
1990: 249 million 514,000 0.206%
2000: 281 million 680,000 0.242%
US hams as a percentage of population increased 0.021% in the '70s, 0.052% in
the '80s and 0.036% in the '90s. So the growth slowed down after the
introduction of code test waivers and the Tech lost its code test.
It stands to reason that if code testing were an 'unnecessary, arbitrary, and
distasteful (to many) barriers to entry', those who were interested, but
dissuaded by those unnecessary barriers would "jump in." when the 'barriers'
were eliminated. Except that's not what happened, in either absolute number of
hams or percentage growth. Growth in total hams was almost exactly the same
during the '90s, compared to the '80s, and the percentage growth actually
dropped.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21)
>Date: 3/2/03 2:29 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com>
>Carl, Had it not been for the Technician class license
> creation over a dozen years ago, US amateur radio
> licensees would have DECREASED in number now by
> over one hundred thousand.
This is an assertion of fact. From which cryatal ball did you glean it?
>This browns off the PCTAs no end since they desperately
> need to regain their self-imposed titles of "King of the Hill"
> in the OLD class structure of US ham radio
Nope. Not in the least. However YOU need to believe it does in order to
sleep at night. Benadryl would have been much more effective.
>PCTAs are
> outraged by this because their entire fantasyland mental
> picture of amateur radio has evaporated.
Again, you need to believe this in order to sleep at night. It's
foolishness on your part, Lennie.
>They cannot stand
> reality and have lost their mental anchor in the safe harbor
> of morse mythology. Pity them.
Pity you having to make it up.
Sheesh.
Steve, K4YZ
Dwight Stewart
> Your models are oversimplified, Dwight. Expirations
> and cancellations are considerable, and Tech-Plus-
> renewal-as-Tech even more of a factor.
Not at all, Jim. Even if you factor in the transfer of Tech-Plus to Tech,
it still adds up to a lot of license holders dropping out instead of
upgrading.
Bill, W7TI
news:20030303042805...@mb-mj.aol.com:
> For a historical context, here are some numbers on the growth of US
> amateur radio in the past 30 years or so.
________________________________________________________________
Interesting stats, Jim.
We're not used to arguing with actual facts on this newsgroup however.
Don't let it happen again. :-)
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
writes:
>"N2EY" wrote:
>
>> Your models are oversimplified, Dwight. Expirations
>> and cancellations are considerable, and Tech-Plus-
>> renewal-as-Tech even more of a factor.
>
>
> Not at all, Jim. Even if you factor in the transfer of Tech-Plus to Tech,
>it still adds up to a lot of license holders dropping out instead of
>upgrading.
>
Sorry if I wasn't clear, Dwight. We seem to be saying the same thing different
ways. I agree that there are significant numbers of dropouts.
The main point is that the growth in Technicians is due to three factors - new
Techs, upgrades from Novice, and renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs. Counteracting
this are dropouts and upgrades.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>Subject: Re: ARS License Numbers
>From: k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson K4YZ)
>Date: 03 Mar 2003 10:57:28 GMT
>
>>Subject: Re: ARS License Numbers
>>From: leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21)
>>Date: 3/2/03 2:29 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com>
>
>>Carl, Had it not been for the Technician class license
>> creation over a dozen years ago, US amateur radio
>> licensees would have DECREASED in number now by
>> over one hundred thousand.
>
> This is an assertion of fact.
No, Steve, it's obviously an opinion, even though it's worded as if it were a
true fact.
The actual license numbers do not back up that opinion, though. The number of
new hams in the '90s was almost exactly the same as in the '80s. Percentage
growth actually declined.
> From which cryatal ball did you glean it?
>
It's wishful thinking, nothing more. The fact is that nobody knows what would
have happened if things hadn't changed in 1990 and 1991.
>>This browns off the PCTAs no end since they desperately
>> need to regain their self-imposed titles of "King of the Hill"
>> in the OLD class structure of US ham radio
"Browns off"?
> Nope. Not in the least. However YOU need to believe it does in order to
>sleep at night. Benadryl would have been much more effective.
>
>> PCTAs are
>> outraged by this because their entire fantasyland mental
>> picture of amateur radio has evaporated.
>
> Again, you need to believe this in order to sleep at night. It's
>foolishness on your part, Lennie.
Steve - ever think the whole point of his postings might be to "brown you off"?
>
>>They cannot stand
>> reality and have lost their mental anchor in the safe harbor
>> of morse mythology. Pity them.
>
> Pity you having to make it up.
>
> Sheesh.
>
'zactly
73 de Jim, N2EY
>
Bert Craig
news:f45722ac.0303...@posting.google.com...
> "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:<Ymx8a.656744$HG.123...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> > > More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
> > > in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
> >
> > Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter pares?
I
> > sure don't.
>
> But not all. I am one that disagrees. The code exam is probably the
> single biggest factor that keeps people moving on when they show an
> interest in amateur radio.
Then it's just about the numbers? If a person is interested enough, I assert
that he/she'll either begin with the Tech ticket and advance as their
interest grows.
> And todays Technician license isn't much of a draw.
50 MHz and up...at up to 1500 watts?!
> I suppose they could become CBers instead
vs. 40 ch. occupying 440 kHz of spectrum...
, learning how to cuss and
> jam, and wire up a toilet flushing sound module to their microphone.
I'm a CBer too, Brian...and I don't cuss OTA or use any of those silly noise
toys. What are you implying?
> Then when they finally decide to overcome the code obstacle, they've
> already become molded into the kind of radio operator that we probably
> don't want.
Do we really want to go there?
> I'd rather get them fresh.
I'd rather get 'em interested.
K3UD
<n2...@aol.com> wrote:
> For a historical context, here are some numbers on the growth of US amateur
> radio in the past 30 years or so. All numbers are rounded off but are accurate
> to within 2%. Sources are various Callbooks and US census data.:
>
> US Hams:
>
> 1970: 270,000
> 1980: 350,000
> 1990: 514,000
> 2000: 680,000
>
> Growth Rate:
>
> 1970 to 1980: 29.6% (120,000 net growth)
> 1980 to 1990: 46.8% (164,000 net growth)
> 1990 to 2000: 32.2% (166,000 net growth)
If the growth rate continues at the 2000 to February 2003 rates we
could be projecting about 720,800 hams by 2010 or about 40,800 net
growth (6%) Quite a difference from the last three decades.
73
George
K3UD
Len Over 21
<wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> writes:
>"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
>> More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
>> in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
>
>Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter pares?" I
>sure don't.
"Proficiency" in morse code has been defined by long-time
amateurs as what They tested to...namely greater than
20 WPM rate.
"First among equals" (literal translatin of Latin phrase) refers
to all the long-timer amateurs who keep telling everyone that
they are "first" when not telling everyone they are "superior."
>The no-code Tech ticket is available to anyone who wishes to
>become a licensed ARO without the "hassle" of the code, hence...no "barrier"
>to AR.
Of course, and all the no-code-test Technicians must ride in
the back of the privilege bus, not drink from the HF fountain,
and be the subject of ridicule shoveled on them by long-time
amateurs due to their "inferiority."
>> This browns off the PCTAs no end since they desperately
>> need to regain their self-imposed titles of "King of the Hill"
>> in the OLD class structure of US ham radio.
>
>What's a PCTA?
Pro-Code Test Advocate. The opposite of an NCTA or No Code
Test Advocate.
Those two acronyms have been in use for at least four years in
here. You are just now asking what it means?!?!?
Len Over 21
writes:
>Sorry if I wasn't clear, Dwight. We seem to be saying the same thing different
>ways. I agree that there are significant numbers of dropouts.
>
>The main point is that the growth in Technicians is due to three factors - new
>Techs, upgrades from Novice, and renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs.
>Counteracting this are dropouts and upgrades.
Prior to FCC 99-412 (the R&O establishing Part 97 restructuring,
issued in December of 1999), the growth in US amateur radio
licensees was primarily from the no-code-test Technician class.
That growth was over a 9-year period.
The facts and figures were shown to you over three years ago
and you then refused to acknowledge either the facts or figures
as having anything to do with any code testing...yet the lack of
necessary code test was so obvious that anyone trying to
discount it was not arguing logically.
The persistent hue and cry from the PCTA regulars in here had
a rationalization summarized by "just wait until renewal time
(for those Techs) and you will see their numbers drop!" The
first renewal period started and there was little drop-off of the
continually-increasing Technician class numbers.
When Joe Speroni revised his website statistical tally to lump
no-code-test Technicians with the old Technician Plusses, you
went right along with that rationalization and discounting of
the code test as having any influence...and refused to separate
Technicians from Technician Plusses even though the FCC
database clearly delineates between all classes. Note: Speroni
is an obvious PCTA as indicated on his website.
As of time-now, you still insist on discounting any code test
factor as influencing growth of the Technician class, "explaining"
it as "Tech Plusses are renewed as Techs (if code test not
taken)" or that no-code-test Technicians "upgraded." None of
which explains the 9-year explosive (relative) growth of no-code-
test Technician class numbers...which more than made up for
the decrease in totals of US amateur licenses from the old other
five license classes.
So far, on the basis of hundreds of past postings up to the time
of this one, you've not shown any interpretive analyses which
are objective. They are all quite biased in favor of the code
test retention whether that is expressed overtly or implied.
The "interpretations" you make are subjective.
Len Over 21
<wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> writes:
>"Brian" <brian...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:f45722ac.0303...@posting.google.com...
>> "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:<Ymx8a.656744$HG.123...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> > "Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
>> > > More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
>> > > in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
>> >
>> > Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter pares?
>I
>> > sure don't.
>>
>> I think that many who have taken the code test would agree with you.
>> But not all. I am one that disagrees. The code exam is probably the
>> single biggest factor that keeps people moving on when they show an
>> interest in amateur radio.
>
>Then it's just about the numbers? If a person is interested enough, I assert
>that he/she'll either begin with the Tech ticket and advance as their
>interest grows.
>
>> And todays Technician license isn't much of a draw.
>
>50 MHz and up...at up to 1500 watts?!
That part of the spectrum is ALSO allocated to Extras and
Generals, plus the old Advanced class licensee, same
power limit.
>> I suppose they could become CBers instead
>
>vs. 40 ch. occupying 440 kHz of spectrum...
>
>, learning how to cuss and
>> jam, and wire up a toilet flushing sound module to their microphone.
>
>I'm a CBer too, Brian...and I don't cuss OTA or use any of those silly noise
>toys. What are you implying?
Calm yourself. You know very well what is CW (Conventional
Wisdom) and PC (Politically Correct) to so many long-time
amateur licensees. They regard Citizens Band Radio Service
users as equivalent to swine, uncouth non-humans unfit to
inhabit the "amateur" 11 meter band (that disappeared in 1958).
>> Then when they finally decide to overcome the code obstacle, they've
>> already become molded into the kind of radio operator that we probably
>> don't want.
>
>Do we really want to go there?
That "there" has already been "gone to." You know very well
the "CW and PC" mindset of some long-timers. Acknowledge
what was publicly overt in here and move on.
>> I'd rather get them fresh.
>
>I'd rather get 'em interested.
Then attend devotions at the Church of St. Hiram and Spread
the Word. Emphasize getting newbies while teeners and
ignore the tens of thousands of today's radio professionals
above 18 and not yet licensed as amateurs.
Professionals don't have the mindset of the devoted Believer
in olde tyme hum radio, are not devoted to the Teachings of
Morse, and know what the rest of the radio world is about.
Some professionals have the temerity to express dissent
about olde tyme hum radio and are not beloved of beeping.
Can you "interest" them by constant denigration that they
are "inferior" or will not show proper CW/PC obediance to
The Correct Way in hamdom?
Dwight Stewart
>
> (snip) We seem to be saying the same thing different
> ways. I agree that there are significant numbers
We are saying the same thing, Jim. The whole point of my message was to
draw attention to the number of dropouts (especially the Tech and Tech Plus
license holders).
> The main point is that the growth in Technicians is due
> to three factors - (snip)
But I didn't say anything about the growth in Technicians. My only mention
of Techs was the fact that some must have upgraded, suggesting even greater
losses for the Novice and Tech Plus in my "oversimplified" model. ;)
Dick Carroll
>
>
> Steve - ever think the whole point of his postings might be to "brown you off"?
>
Why, I thought we all knew that Lame Lennie aka AVeryFineSpeciMan is here for the
express purpose of
"browning off" ham radio and everyone remotely involved in it. Ccept his little
butty Brain "Mogodishu Slim"
BurkeTurkey. He's already embarassingly red (and brown) enough.
N2EY
writes:
Indeed. As the code test requirements are eased, the growth goes down. Of
course correlation is not causation.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
> "N2EY" wrote:
> >
> > (snip) We seem to be saying the same thing different
> > ways. I agree that there are significant numbers
> > of dropouts. (snip)
>
>
> We are saying the same thing, Jim. The whole point of my message was to
> draw attention to the number of dropouts (especially the Tech and Tech Plus
> license holders).
Ah - now I see your point.
But what is a reasonable dropout rate, given the various demographics
of today's hams? For example, I know quite a few local hams who got
started in amateur radio in the 80s as a retirement activity. Those
folks are now in their late 70s and early 80s. Sadly, some of them are
no longer with us.
Also, how does the dropout rate correlate to license class?
>
> > The main point is that the growth in Technicians is due
> > to three factors - (snip)
>
>
> But I didn't say anything about the growth in Technicians. My only mention
> of Techs was the fact that some must have upgraded, suggesting even greater
> losses for the Novice and Tech Plus in my "oversimplified" model. ;)
True :-)
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bert Craig
> In article <Ymx8a.656744$HG.123...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, "Bert
Craig"
> <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> writes:
>
> >"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> >> More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
> >> in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
> >
> >Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter pares?"
I
> >sure don't.
>
> "Proficiency" in morse code has been defined by long-time
> amateurs as what They tested to...namely greater than
> 20 WPM rate.
"Long-time," Len? I've only been licensed for two years...
> "First among equals" (literal translatin of Latin phrase) refers
> to all the long-timer amateurs who keep telling everyone that
> they are "first" when not telling everyone they are "superior."
"Last among lazy." No translation required.
> >The no-code Tech ticket is available to anyone who wishes to
> >become a licensed ARO without the "hassle" of the code, hence...no
"barrier"
> >to AR.
>
> Of course, and all the no-code-test Technicians must ride in
> the back of the privilege bus, not drink from the HF fountain,
> and be the subject of ridicule shoveled on them by long-time
> amateurs due to their "inferiority."
Of course...NOT. No riding in the back of any bus, no code and no-code
fountains, and certainly no ridicule...just a string of approx. 130
characters from a pool of 43 sent over a 5 min. period from which one must:
a) Correctly identify 25 in a row. (Nos., prosigns, and punctuation count as
2, BTW.)
or
b) Answer 7 out of 10 fill in questions re. the aforementioned characters.
Now if you want to debate the "inequality of the system" just for the sake
of debate, fine. But if you can truly say that the 5-wpm constitutes some
sort of "barrier" to AR, I think that's pretty lame. It may be just a hobby
to some, but it's a hobby that is facilitated via "privileges" granted by
the federal gov't. Those privileges are earned. Wanna get on HF...just do
it.
> >> This browns off the PCTAs no end since they desperately
> >> need to regain their self-imposed titles of "King of the Hill"
> >> in the OLD class structure of US ham radio.
Well now you've heard from one of the NEW generation.
> >What's a PCTA?
>
> Pro-Code Test Advocate. The opposite of an NCTA or No Code
> Test Advocate.
>
> Those two acronyms have been in use for at least four years in
> here. You are just now asking what it means?!?!?
Never gave it much thought before. Figured now was as good a time as any to
ask. Take it easy, Len.
N2EY
> In article <20030303122758...@mb-da.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
> writes:
>
> >Sorry if I wasn't clear, Dwight. We seem to be saying the same thing different
> >ways. I agree that there are significant numbers of dropouts.
> >
> >The main point is that the growth in Technicians is due to three factors - new
> >Techs, upgrades from Novice, and renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs.
> >Counteracting this are dropouts and upgrades.
>
> Prior to FCC 99-412 (the R&O establishing Part 97 restructuring,
> issued in December of 1999), the growth in US amateur radio
> licensees was primarily from the no-code-test Technician class.
> That growth was over a 9-year period.
> Prove it, Len. Show us your evidence, argument and conclusions.
I have a 1993 "winged horse" Callbook. It says that at time of
printing (late 1992) there were ~185,000 Technicians - code-tested and
and non-code-tested. No differentiation in the totals.
>
> The facts and figures were shown to you over three years ago
Where? By whom?
> and you then refused to acknowledge either the facts or figures
> as having anything to do with any code testing...
Incorrect.
> yet the lack of
> necessary code test was so obvious that anyone trying to
> discount it was not arguing logically.
You are making the classic error of assuming your conclusion, Len.
You're saying that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is not
logical simply because they disagree. I point out errors in your
arguments, that's all. Like your assumption that all Technicians are
not code-tested.
Show us your facts and figures and let the readers decide.
>
> The persistent hue and cry from the PCTA regulars in here had
> a rationalization summarized by "just wait until renewal time
> (for those Techs) and you will see their numbers drop!"
That "persistent hue and cry" was by some folks, but not by me. I
challenge you to come up with a single post of mine where I predicted
anything about renewal percentages of Technician-class hams vs. other
classes of license.
You lump all those who disagree with your faulty arguments as "PCTAs",
and act as if we are all the same. We're not.
> The
> first renewal period started and there was little drop-off of the
> continually-increasing Technician class numbers.
Show us some figures to back up that claim. Be sure to compensate for
the fact that all Technicians in the database are not necessarily
non-code-tested.
>
> When Joe Speroni
The current license totals I post semimonthly every two weeks do not
come from the AH0A site.
> revised his website statistical tally to lump
> no-code-test Technicians with the old Technician Plusses, you
> went right along with that rationalization and discounting of
> the code test as having any influence...
Incorrect. I do not know AH0A, have never even emailed him.
And the numbers I post here semimonthly DO separate Techs and
Tech-Pluses. So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain
wrong.
> and refused to separate
> Technicians from Technician Plusses even though the FCC
> database clearly delineates between all classes.
Incorrect. I do not know AH0A, have never even emailed him.
And the numbers I post here semimonthly DO separate Techs and
Tech-Pluses. So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain
wrong.
> Note: Speroni
> is an obvious PCTA as indicated on his website.
Does that mean his numbers are not accurate? What numbers would you
have us use?
>
> As of time-now, you still insist on discounting any code test
> factor as influencing growth of the Technician class, "explaining"
> it as "Tech Plusses are renewed as Techs (if code test not
> taken)" or that no-code-test Technicians "upgraded."
Then explain to us why the growth of the US ham license totals from
1990 to 2000 was virtually the same as the growth from 1980 to 1990.
Explain why the percentage growth dropped after 1990. Also explain how
you know what the growth would have been without the 1990 and 1991
changes.
> None of
> which explains the 9-year explosive (relative) growth of no-code-
> test Technician class numbers...which more than made up for
> the decrease in totals of US amateur licenses from the old other
> five license classes.
Show us some numbers, Len. Show us all the license classes and how
their totals have changed from, say, 1970 to the present, to back up
your claims. Be sure to separate code-tested from non-code-tested
Techs from 1991 onwards.
Jim, N2EY
Bert Craig
So much for inequality.
> >> I suppose they could become CBers instead
> >
> >vs. 40 ch. occupying 440 kHz of spectrum...
> >
> >, learning how to cuss and
> >> jam, and wire up a toilet flushing sound module to their microphone.
> >
> >I'm a CBer too, Brian...and I don't cuss OTA or use any of those silly
noise
> >toys. What are you implying?
>
> Calm yourself.
Ok, I'm calm. :-)
> You know very well what is CW (Conventional
> Wisdom) and PC (Politically Correct) to so many long-time
> amateur licensees. They regard Citizens Band Radio Service
> users as equivalent to swine, uncouth non-humans unfit to
> inhabit the "amateur" 11 meter band (that disappeared in 1958).
We both know that's incorrect, right?
> >> Then when they finally decide to overcome the code obstacle, they've
> >> already become molded into the kind of radio operator that we probably
> >> don't want.
> >
> >Do we really want to go there?
>
> That "there" has already been "gone to." You know very well
> the "CW and PC" mindset of some long-timers. Acknowledge
> what was publicly overt in here and move on.
Acknowledged and movin' on...
> >> I'd rather get them fresh.
> >
> >I'd rather get 'em interested.
>
> Then attend devotions at the Church of St. Hiram and Spread
> the Word.
Why is it that those who "advocate" (From my new acronym, PCTA. ;-)) Element
1 testing must be devotees of a holy CW church? I'm just a relative newbie
who wanted to get on HF, found out what needed to be done...and just did it.
Forget CW's virtues for a moment. Whether or not I planned on using CW or
not...it's far easier to just do it than whine about it. The truth is that
they don't sell a multi-choice Q & A pool for Element 1 and that frightens
the crap outta many folks. Witness this:
KN0WCW de WA2SI WA2SI, t_x fer c_ll BT ur _89 BT n_m_ i_ jo_n. ri_ i_
ken_o_d _ith 3 el_m_n_ _agi. qt_ is...and so on.
There's the monster. With a minimal amount of study and concentrating more
on the six required prosigns along with the numbers (They're patterned.
BTW.) simple common sense get's you through this grinning like a Cheshire
cat! Even if you muck up both callsigns, there's still a string of 69
characters in the example above. A little common sense will net you 25 in a
row very easily.
THIS is the target of an entire organization...on an international level?!
Puh-lease...entirely underwhelming.
> Emphasize getting newbies while teeners and
> ignore the tens of thousands of today's radio professionals
> above 18 and not yet licensed as amateurs.
>
> Professionals don't have the mindset of the devoted Believer
> in olde tyme hum radio, are not devoted to the Teachings of
> Morse, and know what the rest of the radio world is about.
> Some professionals have the temerity to express dissent
> about olde tyme hum radio and are not beloved of beeping.
> Can you "interest" them by constant denigration that they
> are "inferior" or will not show proper CW/PC obediance to
> The Correct Way in hamdom?
Give it some more thought. I thank god that my 5-yr. old is not old enough
to whine about anything other than an extra 1/2 hr. of Nickelodeon at night.
When we sit down for our 15 mins. of code after her homework, it never
occurs to her to whine about it. It just gets done.
Len Over 21
brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
>Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:<3E6423B8...@att.net>...
>Dick/W0EX, you better spit out that bile before it chokes you.
He feeds on it.
Len Over 21
<wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> writes:
? Do you wish a "separate-but-equal" status?
Are non-morsemen supposed to ride in the back of the EM bus?
>
>> >> I suppose they could become CBers instead
>> >
>> >vs. 40 ch. occupying 440 kHz of spectrum...
>> >
>> >, learning how to cuss and
>> >> jam, and wire up a toilet flushing sound module to their microphone.
>> >
>> >I'm a CBer too, Brian...and I don't cuss OTA or use any of those silly
>noise
>> >toys. What are you implying?
>>
>> Calm yourself.
>
>Ok, I'm calm. :-)
...before the storm? :-)
>> You know very well what is CW (Conventional
>> Wisdom) and PC (Politically Correct) to so many long-time
>> amateur licensees. They regard Citizens Band Radio Service
>> users as equivalent to swine, uncouth non-humans unfit to
>> inhabit the "amateur" 11 meter band (that disappeared in 1958).
>
>We both know that's incorrect, right?
No. I've heard the CW-PC shouting and hollering from amateur
licensees for 45 years. Their QRM pervades discussion to this
day. By observation all those eptitheti indicate that the spray-
bottle crowd believe their bigotry is divine and unchangeable.
>> >> Then when they finally decide to overcome the code obstacle, they've
>> >> already become molded into the kind of radio operator that we probably
>> >> don't want.
>> >
>> >Do we really want to go there?
>>
>> That "there" has already been "gone to." You know very well
>> the "CW and PC" mindset of some long-timers. Acknowledge
>> what was publicly overt in here and move on.
>
>Acknowledged and movin' on...
We will see...please do not be optimistic since someone in
here is about to go ballistic.
>> Then attend devotions at the Church of St. Hiram and Spread
>> the Word.
>
>Why is it that those who "advocate" (From my new acronym, PCTA. ;-)) Element
>1 testing must be devotees of a holy CW church? I'm just a relative newbie
>who wanted to get on HF, found out what needed to be done...and just did it.
>Forget CW's virtues for a moment. Whether or not I planned on using CW or
>not...it's far easier to just do it than whine about it. The truth is that
>they don't sell a multi-choice Q & A pool for Element 1 and that frightens
>the crap outta many folks. Witness this:
>
>KN0WCW de WA2SI WA2SI, t_x fer c_ll BT ur _89 BT n_m_ i_ jo_n. ri_ i_
>ken_o_d _ith 3 el_m_n_ _agi. qt_ is...and so on.
>
>There's the monster. With a minimal amount of study and concentrating more
>on the six required prosigns along with the numbers (They're patterned.
>BTW.) simple common sense get's you through this grinning like a Cheshire
>cat! Even if you muck up both callsigns, there's still a string of 69
>characters in the example above. A little common sense will net you 25 in a
>row very easily.
>
>THIS is the target of an entire organization...on an international level?!
>Puh-lease...entirely underwhelming.
Absolutely...and NOT "underwhelming." There's been NO
logical need for morsemanship in amateur radio for years,
only the insistence of old-timers that such skills MUST be
achieved...to fit the old-timers' quaint ideas that amateur
radio skills of long decades ago MUST be preserved in a
sort of living museum of the airwaves.
Have you seen what the FCC stated publicly in 1990 and
in 1999 on their need for morse code testing? I can pull
those without once Googling if you need an update.
>> Emphasize getting newbies while teeners and
>> ignore the tens of thousands of today's radio professionals
>> above 18 and not yet licensed as amateurs.
>>
>> Professionals don't have the mindset of the devoted Believer
>> in olde tyme hum radio, are not devoted to the Teachings of
>> Morse, and know what the rest of the radio world is about.
>> Some professionals have the temerity to express dissent
>> about olde tyme hum radio and are not beloved of beeping.
>> Can you "interest" them by constant denigration that they
>> are "inferior" or will not show proper CW/PC obediance to
>> The Correct Way in hamdom?
>
>Give it some more thought.
No. The subject of morse code testing has been considered
here for over 50 years...which included actual operation on HF
in communications (as well as other EM places forbidden to
US amateurs).
The "necessity" for a morse code test boils down to a simple
turf thing of old-timers having to test for morsemanship,
therefore everyone else must do the same. Illogical, personal,
emotional reasoning. Stubbornness. Turf things because
they made it and now claim ownership over who can do what
or who can discuss laws.
The FCC determines who gets an amateur license and the
attendant "title" of a callsign that hams love to write behind
(or in lieu of) their name.
>I thank god that my 5-yr. old is not old enough
>to whine about anything other than an extra 1/2 hr. of Nickelodeon at night.
That's nice...you now equate newsgroup opponents as
children?
The so-called record of the world's youngest ham was made
in 1998 by a four-year-old who passed a Novice class license.
If you wanted to get all snarly, I would remind you that age 5
is a year late compared to that male black child of the record.
But I don't like to get folks all lathered up about recent
events, so I won't do such reminding.
Do you need information on Nickelodeon? They are on Olive
street in Burbank, just across from Community Chevrolet.
Very distinctive front of their main building. I am acquainted
with two adults who work there.
>When we sit down for our 15 mins. of code after her homework, it never
>occurs to her to whine about it. It just gets done.
That's nice. Quality time with your children. Instill the Proper
Virtues and the progressive Amateur Way that morsemanship
is the epitome of all amateur skills.
You are welcome to call all opponents of your viewpoints
"children" and dismiss them as unworthy by describing
their opposition as "whining." You can even falsely extend
your complaints received later as "an insult to your kids"
in a snide misdirection. That is commonplace in computer-
modem communications...but still misdirection.
You have an alternate to later replies to your "childish whining"
charge - You know better. [always a popular choice] This
states that opponents are truly unworthy of your magnificent
statements of clarity and logical thought.
There are any number of misdirections and statements of
superiority through tenure, class, callsign, etc. which can be
used in your replies. See what others use. [Google away]
Do not expect all the charges of childish whining to be received
in good humor...
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030303195010...@mb-cj.aol.com>
>Of course, and all the no-code-test Technicians must ride in
> the back of the privilege bus, not drink from the HF fountain,
> and be the subject of ridicule shoveled on them by long-time
> amateurs due to their "inferiority."
All of the No Code Technicians are in the back of that bus due to treaties
signed by the United States, ratified byt the Congress of the United States,
and NOT subject to unilateral interpretation by the FCC, and agency subordinate
to the Congress of the United States...
NOT individual FCC licensees, regardless of what Lennie tries to make it
appear.
> Those two acronyms have been in use for at least four years in
> here. You are just now asking what it means?!?!?
Bert's not been a part of this forum for those years, Your
Scumminess...Not everyone eats, drinks and lives to be a part of the
tit-for-tat herein. Just becasue YOU think it's important doesn't mean it has
the same priority in other people's ADL's. (*)
Steve, K4YZ
(*)...Oooops did I use an acronym Lennie doesn't know...?!?! I use it every
day, Lennie, why don't YOU know it...?!?!
Len Over 21
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>>Of course, and all the no-code-test Technicians must ride in
>> the back of the privilege bus, not drink from the HF fountain,
>> and be the subject of ridicule shoveled on them by long-time
>> amateurs due to their "inferiority."
>
> All of the No Code Technicians are in the back of that bus due to
treaties
>signed by the United States, ratified byt the Congress of the United States,
>and NOT subject to unilateral interpretation by the FCC, and agency
subordinate
>to the Congress of the United States...
Oh, my, were you admitted to a bar this afternoon and thought
you had become a legal beagle? Arf, arf?
Strange words. According to the FCC, not to mention a couple
of Acts of Congress (one in 1934, another in 1996), only the
FCC created the class of the (no-code-test) Technician license.
Not the US Congress. Not the ITU.
Since the FCC is chartered (by law) to regulate US civil radio,
it MAKES the US civil radio regulations. Neither is the FCC
"subordinate to Congress." FCC is not part of the Legislative
branch of the US government. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Better review US civics and government, Forest Grump.
> NOT individual FCC licensees, regardless of what Lennie tries to make it
>appear.
"Makes it appear?!?" :-) Have you been watching reruns of
Rocky the Flying Squirrel on TV and think I am Bullwinkle?
["watch me pull a rabbit out of the hat!"] Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)
>> Those two acronyms have been in use for at least four years in
>> here. You are just now asking what it means?!?!?
>
> Bert's not been a part of this forum for those years, Your
>Scumminess...Not everyone eats, drinks and lives to be a part of the
>tit-for-tat herein.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bert answered for himself in here. Has he been
"absent for years?" Go thee and Google, hostile action hero.
Try to let others answer for themselves, Forest Grump.
Dwight Stewart
> But what is a reasonable dropout rate, (snip) Sadly, some
> of them are no longer with us.
The least possible (I'd like to see all remain with us).
> Also, how does the dropout rate correlate to license class?
Beyond my original comments, perhaps not at all.
Dick Carroll
Bert Craig wrote:
> "Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030303195010...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> > In article <Ymx8a.656744$HG.123...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, "Bert
> Craig"
> > <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> writes:
> >
> > >"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> > >> More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
> > >> in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
> > >
> > >Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter pares?"
> I
> > >sure don't.
> >
> > "Proficiency" in morse code has been defined by long-time
> > amateurs as what They tested to...namely greater than
> > 20 WPM rate.
>
> "Long-time," Len? I've only been licensed for two years...
>
> > "First among equals" (literal translatin of Latin phrase) refers
> > to all the long-timer amateurs who keep telling everyone that
> > they are "first" when not telling everyone they are "superior."
>
> "Last among lazy." No translation required.
WHOA! Hammer, meet nail!
Dick Carroll
N2EY wrote:
>
>
> Show us some numbers, Len.....
snip
All Len will *ever* show is his bare backside.
AVeryFineSpeciMan indeed.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3E6423B8...@att.net>...
> > >
> > >
> Dick/W0EX, you better spit out that bile before it chokes you.
The bile is all yours, Slim. Enjoy. Oh, you've been enjoying for years. Right.
Bert Craig
news:f45722ac.0303...@posting.google.com...
> "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> > "Brian" <brian...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:f45722ac.0303...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> > news:<Ymx8a.656744$HG.123...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > > "Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:20030302152900...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> > > > > More modern folks are just not impressed by "proficiency
> > > > > in morse code as the primus inter pares of amateur radio.
> > > >
> > > > Do you really believe that a 5-wpm exam constitutes "primus inter
pares?
> > I
> > > > sure don't.
> > >
> > > I think that many who have taken the code test would agree with you.
> > > But not all. I am one that disagrees. The code exam is probably the
> > > single biggest factor that keeps people moving on when they show an
> > > interest in amateur radio.
> >
> > Then it's just about the numbers? If a person is interested enough, I
assert
> > that he/she'll either begin with the Tech ticket and advance as their
> > interest grows.
>
Stop thinking of the code as a barrier. You advance by passing Element 1,
that's how.
"Think you can or think you can't...either way, you're right."
Bert Craig
Was it something I said? 0;-)
Bert Craig
Who said that all amateurs are equal, Len? Not I. Those holding a Tech"+",
General, Advanced, or Extra have "earned" (There's that evil little word
again.) privileges than their no-code Tech counterparts.
> Are non-morsemen supposed to ride in the back of the EM bus?
Of course not, just pass Element 1 and move up to the front.
> >> >> I suppose they could become CBers instead
> >> >
> >> >vs. 40 ch. occupying 440 kHz of spectrum...
> >> >
> >> >, learning how to cuss and
> >> >> jam, and wire up a toilet flushing sound module to their microphone.
> >> >
> >> >I'm a CBer too, Brian...and I don't cuss OTA or use any of those silly
> >noise
> >> >toys. What are you implying?
> >>
> >> Calm yourself.
> >
> >Ok, I'm calm. :-)
>
> ...before the storm? :-)
Good one. :-)
> >> You know very well what is CW (Conventional
> >> Wisdom) and PC (Politically Correct) to so many long-time
> >> amateur licensees. They regard Citizens Band Radio Service
> >> users as equivalent to swine, uncouth non-humans unfit to
> >> inhabit the "amateur" 11 meter band (that disappeared in 1958).
> >
> >We both know that's incorrect, right?
>
> No. I've heard the CW-PC shouting and hollering from amateur
> licensees for 45 years. Their QRM pervades discussion to this
> day. By observation all those eptitheti indicate that the spray-
> bottle crowd believe their bigotry is divine and unchangeable.
I was agreeing with you, Len. "Calm youself."
> >> >> Then when they finally decide to overcome the code obstacle, they've
> >> >> already become molded into the kind of radio operator that we
probably
> >> >> don't want.
> >> >
> >> >Do we really want to go there?
> >>
> >> That "there" has already been "gone to." You know very well
> >> the "CW and PC" mindset of some long-timers. Acknowledge
> >> what was publicly overt in here and move on.
> >
> >Acknowledged and movin' on...
>
> We will see...please do not be optimistic since someone in
> here is about to go ballistic.
Again, Not I.
Sure there is, Len. All the bands contain CW sub-bands and 30m is CW only.
(...and all are quite busy.)
> ,
> only the insistence of old-timers that such skills MUST be
> achieved...to fit the old-timers' quaint ideas that amateur
> radio skills of long decades ago MUST be preserved in a
> sort of living museum of the airwaves.
"Living" Museum, Len? "It's alive!" ("That's Fronk-en-steen.")
> Have you seen what the FCC stated publicly in 1990 and
> in 1999 on their need for morse code testing? I can pull
> those without once Googling if you need an update.
>
> >> Emphasize getting newbies while teeners and
> >> ignore the tens of thousands of today's radio professionals
> >> above 18 and not yet licensed as amateurs.
> >>
> >> Professionals don't have the mindset of the devoted Believer
> >> in olde tyme hum radio, are not devoted to the Teachings of
> >> Morse, and know what the rest of the radio world is about.
> >> Some professionals have the temerity to express dissent
> >> about olde tyme hum radio and are not beloved of beeping.
> >> Can you "interest" them by constant denigration that they
> >> are "inferior" or will not show proper CW/PC obediance to
> >> The Correct Way in hamdom?
Huh? "I say, I say, I say...you're ramblin' son. (Foghorn Leghorn)
> >Give it some more thought.
>
> No. The subject of morse code testing has been considered
> here for over 50 years...which included actual operation on HF
> in communications (as well as other EM places forbidden to
> US amateurs).
>
> The "necessity" for a morse code test boils down to a simple
> turf thing of old-timers having to test for morsemanship,
> therefore everyone else must do the same. Illogical, personal,
> emotional reasoning. Stubbornness. Turf things because
> they made it and now claim ownership over who can do what
> or who can discuss laws.
>
> The FCC determines who gets an amateur license and the
> attendant "title" of a callsign that hams love to write behind
> (or in lieu of) their name.
Uh huh.
> >I thank god that my 5-yr. old is not old enough
> >to whine about anything other than an extra 1/2 hr. of Nickelodeon at
night.
>
> That's nice...you now equate newsgroup opponents as
> children?
Some, yes. In a few cases the children a a tad more sensible. <hihi> Oops,
sorry...I meant <g>
> The so-called record of the world's youngest ham was made
> in 1998 by a four-year-old who passed a Novice class license.
> If you wanted to get all snarly, I would remind you that age 5
> is a year late compared to that male black child of the record.
> But I don't like to get folks all lathered up about recent
> events, so I won't do such reminding.
>
> Do you need information on Nickelodeon? They are on Olive
> street in Burbank, just across from Community Chevrolet.
> Very distinctive front of their main building. I am acquainted
> with two adults who work there.
>
> >When we sit down for our 15 mins. of code after her homework, it never
> >occurs to her to whine about it. It just gets done.
>
> That's nice. Quality time with your children. Instill the Proper
> Virtues and the progressive Amateur Way that morsemanship
> is the epitome of all amateur skills.
Nope, she's just at that stage where she literally "soaks" up stuff. Why not
give her the gift of being able to forget the code rather than learn it if
she decides to become "radio-active," later in life? Notice I didn't say "to
pass Element 1." Plus, it's a game to her. Gee, doesn't that mean 5-wpm
is...ready, Len...here it comes..."childsplay." Haw! Actually, her
characters are not set at 5-wpm...they're at 15-wpm!
> You are welcome to call all opponents of your viewpoints
> "children"
The statement doesn't fit...so you must acquit. Sorry, Len...I didn't call
anybody a child.
> and dismiss them as unworthy by describing
> their opposition as "whining." You can even falsely extend
> your complaints received later as "an insult to your kids"
> in a snide misdirection. That is commonplace in computer-
> modem communications...but still misdirection.
>
> You have an alternate to later replies to your "childish whining"
> charge - You know better. [always a popular choice] This
> states that opponents are truly unworthy of your magnificent
> statements of clarity and logical thought.
>
> There are any number of misdirections and statements of
> superiority through tenure, class, callsign, etc. which can be
> used in your replies. See what others use. [Google away]
>
> Do not expect all the charges of childish whining to be received
> in good humor...
Alrighty then, whew! You take care, Len.
N2EY
> N2EY wrote:
Dick,
Why so negative? Perhaps Len has some useful information about ARS
license numbers that he hasn't shared yet. For example, if he has old
Callbooks or CD-ROMs, he could generate a listing of license class
totals over various time periods and share it with the newsgroup.
Such data could either support or work against his claims. Without
such data, those claims are just wild speculation presented as facts.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
> "N2EY" wrote:
>
> > But what is a reasonable dropout rate, (snip) Sadly, some
> > of them are no longer with us.
>
> The least possible (I'd like to see all remain with us).
Agreed!!
A better question would be "what's the minimum realistic dropout
rate?".
If the 'average' ham is licensed 50 years (!) the dropout rate
averages out to 2% per year. With 680,000 hams, that's 13,600 per
year.
>
> > Also, how does the dropout rate correlate to license class?
>
> Beyond my original comments, perhaps not at all.
>
One way to calculate it from the AH0A data:
1) Add up all the cancellations and expirations for a given time
period (say, calendar year 2002). Call this total 'raw dropouts'
2) Add up all the renewals and renewals-in-the-grace-period for the
same time period. Call this total 'all renewals'
3) Subtract 'all renewals' from 'raw dropouts' to get 'adjusted
dropouts'.
For the Technician case, both Techs and Tech Pluses must be considered
together because Tech Pluses are renewed as Techs. If this is not
done, the Tech dropout rate will appear to be lower than it really is,
due to Tech Plus renewals offsetting true Tech dropouts.
If anyone actually does this calculation, I predict the dropout rate
will not be much different for the various license classes.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Len Over 21
<wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> writes:
Ah, but this sub-thread evolved out of the Latin phrase "primus
inter pares," an oxymoron in a dead language...literally trans-
lated as "first among equals."
That Latin phrase was used by RCA commercial avionics
group out of the RCA Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems
Division back in the 1970s. Cute, but it was ripe for some
kidding in the avionics industry...:-)
As used in amateur radio, it is meaningless in the sum total of
political correctness and "CW" (Conventional Wisdom, a phrase
used by Newsweek magazine) hamspeak. US amateur radio
has been stratified for decades by a Class Distinction, reaching
a peak with the 6 different classes of amateur licenses. Those
still exist, by the way, 99-412 didn't take it away entirely, just
stopped issuing new amateur license grants to 3 of the 6 classes.
The 6 classes still exist legally and factually.
The olde farte mindset is absolutely grounded in Class Distinction
in here...the olde fartes being condescendingly smug/arrogant in
looking down noses at the "inferiors." Since they insist on a
curious sort of "equality" of their "ham community" through an
amateur license they nonetheless rate themselves "first" (if not
"superior"). That "firstness" is evidently extremely important to
themselves although of marginal value to anyone else. :-)
>> Are non-morsemen supposed to ride in the back of the EM bus?
>
>Of course not, just pass Element 1 and move up to the front.
Odd, a half century ago and during four periods subsequent, I've
operated over much of the HF spectrum without any morseman-
ship necessary or needed.
Ah, you are referring to AMATEUR radio where a number of
amateurs consider morsemanship to be of the paramount skill
accomplishment...and therefore being a "qualifier" for permission
to operate in small slices of the HF spectrum.
That's still curious...other radio services do not have this
"qualifier" yet the amateur still considers it a necessity. It seems
to be the only radio service requiring that qualifier. Do you sense
any illogic there? Or isn't it just an emotional mindset based on
some odd territorial imperative held by those wonderful olde fartes?
>> >We both know that's incorrect, right?
>>
>> No. I've heard the CW-PC shouting and hollering from amateur
>> licensees for 45 years. Their QRM pervades discussion to this
>> day. By observation all those eptitheti indicate that the spray-
>> bottle crowd believe their bigotry is divine and unchangeable.
>
>I was agreeing with you, Len. "Calm youself."
No problem. Bigotry exists in human society in many guises.
I've seen enough of it in seven decades of existance...actually
quite enough by the third decade. Does your comment mean
that you condone bigotry by self-styled supremacists?
I don't condone it, nor appreciate it, nor accept it. You may have
noticed some of that in here... :-)
>> >Acknowledged and movin' on...
>>
>> We will see...please do not be optimistic since someone in
>> here is about to go ballistic.
>
>Again, Not I.
I do not expect it from you, Bert. In this medium there are a
surprising number of readers who never post but a small group
of olde farte regulars who insist on nailing their personal view-
points, prejudices, preferences, and persimmon-puckered
ascerbicity upon some "infereior" elements as if those sub-
humans required some kind of ethnic cleansing. :-)
>> Absolutely...and NOT "underwhelming." There's been NO
>> logical need for morsemanship in amateur radio for years
>
>Sure there is, Len. All the bands contain CW sub-bands and 30m is CW only.
>(...and all are quite busy.)
Sorry, but all those sub-bands are there to satisfy the needs of
some olde fartes, a sort of spectral clubroom away from the
main hall of the lodge, isolated so as to not upset the narrow-
banders seeking refuge from the turbulence of the mainstream.
There they can exercise their special skills, give each other
virtual high-fives about being the best of all radio operators...as
they imagine the rest of the radio world smiling down in
appreciation of their magnificent morse accomplishments.
Note: "All the bands" refers only to amateur HF and two small
slivers of each of two VHF bands. There are NO exclusive
CW-only sub-bands on the 99+% of US amateur allocations
which are above 2 meters. Note also that US amateur HF
allocations are not that exclusive for OOK CW; only the two
VHF slivers are CW-only.
>> only the insistence of old-timers that such skills MUST be
>> achieved...to fit the old-timers' quaint ideas that amateur
>> radio skills of long decades ago MUST be preserved in a
>> sort of living museum of the airwaves.
>
>"Living" Museum, Len? "It's alive!" ("That's Fronk-en-steen.")
Mary Shelley should have had a talk with Ada Lovelace.
Neither produced anything but fiction. [those not knowing
literary history will not understand the above...]
ARRL caters to the olde farte mentality, the traditionalists,
the certificatists, those wishing (sometimes desperately) of a
lifestyle away from reality so that they achieve some sense of
self-importance. Since ARRL has a virtual monopoly on US
radio amateur publications, ARRL can exercise influence on
the "amateur community." Perhaps ARRL has deluded itself
since three-quarters of all licensed US radio amateurs are NOT
members. ARRL still does not understand that and may not
until there is a full turnover of all its managers and directors.
>Huh? "I say, I say, I say...you're ramblin' son. (Foghorn Leghorn)
Don't be a cartoon. The original was "Senator Claghorn" (voice
of Kenny Delmar) on the Fred Allen radio show's "Allen's
Alley" regular skit, along with "Mrs. Nussbaum," "Titus Moody"
and some others.
>> That's nice...you now equate newsgroup opponents as
>> children?
>
>Some, yes. In a few cases the children a a tad more sensible. <hihi> Oops,
>sorry...I meant <g>
Careful OM, don't use BF. 599 on the "translations" but not
needed as a ROTFLMAO will do nicely in this mode. :-)
BF = "Bad Form" a quaint olde English expression rather out
of date, even by Brits nowadays. At one time that was
supposed to be one of the accepted abbreviations in hamspeak,
pushed by certain Anglophiles in the New England area.
>Nope, she's just at that stage where she literally "soaks" up stuff. Why not
>give her the gift of being able to forget the code rather than learn it if
>she decides to become "radio-active," later in life? Notice I didn't say "to
>pass Element 1." Plus, it's a game to her. Gee, doesn't that mean 5-wpm
>is...ready, Len...here it comes..."childsplay." Haw! Actually, her
>characters are not set at 5-wpm...they're at 15-wpm!
Of course...and by extension, all of the ham operating "skills"
are then based on childhood pursuits or are childlike? Are
all the olde farte mentalities grounded on some childish game
of "king of the hill?" Perhaps so.
A previous message merry-go-round in here involved the FCC's
rather lax definition of morse code word rate...itself based on an
obsolete CCITT document which had been revised and updated
by ITU-T...but the FCC had not corrected itself in 99-412 or a
subsequent addendum on restructuring.
Regardless of the accomplishments of your very own child, not
all children are supplied with an unlimited number of aptitudes,
able to "soak up" anything equally. That applies to languages,
artistic skills, reasoning skills, physical skills and similar
attributes...including arrhythmic monotonic pattern cognition
(on-off codes as heard over radios). Federal regulations on radio
are not based around individual-example children but on all US
citizens of all ages. Regulations on mitigation of interference
are there for responsible humans requiring some degree of
maturity.
Now, I'm not criticizing you or your daughter, Bert, but parents
are seldom able to evaluate their children objectively, regardless
of their claims. Children aren't the issue. Regulations affecting
the entire citizenry of a country are the issue.
>> You are welcome to call all opponents of your viewpoints
>> "children"
>
>The statement doesn't fit...so you must acquit. Sorry, Len...I didn't call
>anybody a child.
You are not a Johnnie Cochrane nor an O. J. Simpson, are
not on public TV in here. You may have robes but aren't a
"Dancing Ito" led by a Marcia Clark.
The "Haw, childsplay" commentary you've used implies that.
>> Do not expect all the charges of childish whining to be received
>> in good humor...
>
>Alrighty then, whew! You take care, Len.
See ya...
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030304230005...@mb-bk.aol.com>
>> All of the No Code Technicians are in the back of that bus due to
>treaties
>>signed by the United States, ratified byt the Congress of the United States,
>>and NOT subject to unilateral interpretation by the FCC, and agency
>subordinate
>>to the Congress of the United States...
>
> Oh, my, were you admitted to a bar this afternoon and thought
> you had become a legal beagle? Arf, arf?
>
> Strange words. According to the FCC, not to mention a couple
> of Acts of Congress (one in 1934, another in 1996), only the
> FCC created the class of the (no-code-test) Technician license.
> Not the US Congress. Not the ITU.
S25 limits Amateur Radio licensure to operators with no demonstrated Morse
Code proficiency to frequencies above 30 megahertz.
Nothing strange about that...it's been that way for decades.
>Since the FCC is chartered (by law) to regulate US civil radio,
> it MAKES the US civil radio regulations. Neither is the FCC
> "subordinate to Congress." FCC is not part of the Legislative
> branch of the US government
The FCC is NOT subordinate to the Congress of the United States...?!?!
BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
WHAT A FREAKIN' IDIOT!
If you say so, Lennie...if you say so! ! ! ! ! !
>Better review US civics and government, Forest Grump
Take your own advice, Sir Scumbag LaTwit.
>Try to let others answer for themselves, Forest Grump
Try to get YOUR answers correct, Lennie!
Sheesh! WHAT an IDIOT! ! ! !
Len Over 21
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>>> All of the No Code Technicians are in the back of that bus due to
>>treaties
>>>signed by the United States, ratified byt the Congress of the United
>States,
>>>and NOT subject to unilateral interpretation by the FCC, and agency
>>subordinate
>>>to the Congress of the United States...
>>
>> Oh, my, were you admitted to a bar this afternoon and thought
>> you had become a legal beagle? Arf, arf?
>>
>> Strange words. According to the FCC, not to mention a couple
>> of Acts of Congress (one in 1934, another in 1996), only the
>> FCC created the class of the (no-code-test) Technician license.
>> Not the US Congress. Not the ITU.
>
> S25 limits Amateur Radio licensure to operators with no demonstrated
>Morse Code proficiency to frequencies above 30 megahertz.
Tsk, tsk, tsk..."S25" refers to the entire set of ITU-R
Recommendations for amateur radio.
S25.5 is the specific Recommendation in regards to
administrations giving International Morse Code testing for
any amateur radio license having privileges below 30 MHz.
S25.5 does not "limit" anyone, since it merely indicates
a frequency below which licensees should (not shall)
demonstrate the ability to receive International Morse Code
by ear and send by hand. Note that ITU-R Recommendations
are just recommendations, not commands or regulations to
be obeyed.
In the USA, the "send by hand" portion of S25.5 is an optional
waive for all examinations. Administration members of ITU-R
are not obliged to precisely obey all recommendations.
Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
Administrations are free to impose morse code testing for all
amateur licensees if they so wish, or partial morse code
testing for privileges above 30 MHz. It is all up to each nation's
administrations.
> Nothing strange about that...it's been that way for decades.
That it was "always so" is not a valid criterion for an ITU-R
Recommendation.
>>Since the FCC is chartered (by law) to regulate US civil radio,
>> it MAKES the US civil radio regulations. Neither is the FCC
>> "subordinate to Congress." FCC is not part of the Legislative
>> branch of the US government
>
> The FCC is NOT subordinate to the Congress of the United States...?!?!
>
>BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
>
> WHAT A FREAKIN' IDIOT!
>
> If you say so, Lennie...if you say so! ! ! ! ! !
No, the US government says so. The Federal Communications
Commission is an independent agency. It was formerly under
Department of Commerce, a secretariat.
There are three branches of the United States government:
Administrative, Legislative, Judicial. Congress is the
Legislative branch. The presidency and secretaries are the
administration branch. The Supreme Court is the Judicial.
>>Better review US civics and government, Forest Grump
>
> Take your own advice, Sir Scumbag LaTwit.
"Laugh" all you want, use all the epithets you want...you will not
change the US government that way, nor the Constitution of the
United States of America.
Dwight Stewart
>
> If the 'average' ham is licensed 50 years (!) (snip)
Wow, and you questioned my assumptions. Actually, I like the numbers
though. If true, that means I have about 46 more years to go - which will
make me about 90+ years old in the end. At that point, I guess I'll drop out
of ham radio and go into deep sea diving or something. :)
And, yes, I do know what you're trying to say. I'm just trying to lighten
up the conversation a little (see below).
> If anyone actually does this calculation, I predict
> the dropout rate will not be much different for the
> various license classes.
I'll take your word for it, Jim. My original comments were just a
knee-jerk reaction to my first impression of the numbers. Because of that,
I'm certainly not going to defend them through an in-depth study using the
steps you've outlined.
Len Over 21
(N2EY) writes:
>Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:<3E659A78...@att.net>...
>> N2EY wrote:
>
>> > Show us some numbers, Len.....
>>
>> snip
>>
>> All Len will *ever* show is his bare backside.
>>
>> AVeryFineSpeciMan indeed.
>
>Dick,
>
>Why so negative? Perhaps Len has some useful information about ARS
>license numbers that he hasn't shared yet.
I've "shared" information 5 years ago on the FCC's own database
(available then, as now, free to the public). Got arguments and
charges of "lying" about it...:-)
>For example, if he has old
>Callbooks or CD-ROMs, he could generate a listing of license class
>totals over various time periods and share it with the newsgroup.
FCC grants US amateur radio licenses, not the Callbook or
CD-ROMs. :-)
Ever since the restructuring period, the AH0A stat pages have
lumped the two Technician totals into one pseudo-class. That
was clever for Speroni, an avowed PCTA...especially when the
no-code-test Technicians can't be readily extracted to show
the actual growth of non-morse hobbyists in the USA. The
rationales for them "being essentially the same" abound. :-)
One CAN get somewhat-old data from the Speroni stat site
for a relatively short period before restructuring. Mr. N2EY has
never accepted such arguments since he too is an avowed
PCTA and insists on the morse code test not being any sort of
valid reason. :-)
>Such data could either support or work against his claims.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. In previous numbers games in here, Mr. N2EY
has been steadfast in rationalizing his viewpoints and using
sources and presentations from those sources which are
biased towards his own viewpoints (that of an avowed PCTA).
ALL of those exchanges are in Google. :-)
The FCC makes the entire US amateur radio license database
available to the public, updated each week. That is the source
of "Callbook data" and "CD-ROM data" except that downloaders
often do further sorting for their own purposes. Such sorting and
tabulation is NOT government approved, just based on
government data. Mr. N2EY is free to download the FCC data-
base and sort his own directly.
>Without
>such data, those claims are just wild speculation presented as facts.
Tsk, tsk, tsk! "Wild speculation!" :-)
PCTAs in here seem to be imbued with morsemen's wild hair
on even the least negative attitude towards morse code's
macho magnificence. [see Mr.N2EY, Dickiebird, the colonel,
the flipped-out hostile action hero, and some other bus riders,
see also Dick and Jane plus Archie from ARRL in old ham
comic book strips]
There's very selective non-acceptance of "facts" in here by the
PCTA regulars if such facts do not exemplify, honor, and
revere mighty morse. QED. "It is as demonstrated."
Since my two Callbooks (same year, different sorting) from the
mid 1970s long since went to the recycling can...so did my
three IEEE membership directories (from different years), old
telephone directories, old industry periodicals and old catalogs...
stating the personal presence of such data sources is not
strictly "factual." Factual implies that a data source is available
for anyone to peruse, reference, or check...and remains un-
changed in content. Anyone.
Deliberate biasing of true factual data is bogus, the "wild
speculation" of Mr. N2EY's charge. An example is the bundling
together of the Speroni stats for Technician and Technician-Plus
so as to mask those that were code tested versus those that
were not code tested for their licenses.
Mr. N2EY should busy himself with downloading the weekly FCC
free databases and sorting them out himself...instead of using
others' databases? Or prepare another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount evangelizing the Right Attitude on the worship and
reverence of morsemanship.
beep, beep
Dick Carroll
N2EY wrote:
> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3E659A78...@att.net>...
> > N2EY wrote:
>
> > > Show us some numbers, Len.....
> >
> > snip
> >
> > All Len will *ever* show is his bare backside.
> >
> > AVeryFineSpeciMan indeed.
>
> Dick,
>
> Why so negative?
Welllll..., Jim, you know the rules--- two negatives make one positive!
He's positively the original Putz.
> Perhaps Len has some useful information about ARS
> license numbers that he hasn't shared yet.
I'm sure you said that in jest.... the one thing he's never showed us
is real
information re ham radio. And never will.
> For example, if he has old
> Callbooks or CD-ROMs, he could generate a listing of license class
> totals over various time periods and share it with the newsgroup.
Yeah, Right! as if.
>
> Such data could either support or work against his claims. Without
> such data, those claims are just wild speculation presented as facts.
>
That's all he has ever had, all he ever will.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3E659E71...@att.net>...
> I just don't want your callsign becoming available prematurely. Live
> long and prosper.
That has long been the plan and still is. How're your plans going? Do
you think that someday you might find it in yourself to grow up, wise up
and move on
with your life? Or just sit it all out?
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030305185603...@mb-cj.aol.com>
>Odd, a half century ago and during four periods subsequent, I've
> operated over much of the HF spectrum without any morseman-
> ship necessary or needed.
You have not "operated" on HF, Lennie. You were involved in the emissions
of RF at frequencies in the HF range, but in the context of Amateur Radio, you
have zero point zero hours of experience.
This IS an AMATEUR RADIO forum, afterall....
>Ah, you are referring to AMATEUR radio where a number of
> amateurs consider morsemanship to be of the paramount skill
> accomplishment...and therefore being a "qualifier" for permission
> to operate in small slices of the HF spectrum.
Nope. The Code Test is only 1/4th of the examination criteria, and that
dictated by the United States' compliance with treaties to which it is
signatory.
That YOU don't consider it relevent is laughable and in itself IRrelevent.
Persons with actual communications law experience have disproven your rants
already. Take a hint.
>That's still curious...other radio services do not have this
> "qualifier" yet the amateur still considers it a necessity.
Other "radio services" are not covered by S25. ONLY Amateur Radio.
>It seems
> to be the only radio service requiring that qualifier
Duh...ya think?
>Do you sense any illogic there?
Only since the law that still requires it is an international one, and is
up for review THIS year.
>Or isn't it just an emotional mindset based on
> some odd territorial imperative held by those wonderful olde fartes?
Nope. Just the law. You DO believe that a peaceful society must have
laws which are changed by peaceful means and majority rule, don't you, Lennie?
Or are you an anarchist...?!?!
>No problem. Bigotry exists in human society in many guises.
> I've seen enough of it in seven decades of existance...actually
> quite enough by the third decade. Does your comment mean
> that you condone bigotry by self-styled supremacists?
No one "condones" self-styled supremacists, Lennie, but we do TOLERATE
you.
>I don't condone it, nor appreciate it, nor accept it. You may have
> noticed some of that in here...
Yep...From "Lenof21", "Lenover21", "Averyfineman", "NoCWTest" and others
emanating from your keyboard....
>Sorry, but all those sub-bands are there to satisfy the needs of
> some olde fartes, a sort of spectral clubroom away from the
> main hall of the lodge, isolated so as to not upset the narrow-
> banders seeking refuge from the turbulence of the mainstream.
The FCC recognizes those "sub-bands" as necessary in order to allow equal
access and minimal interference between mode users. You milage varties, but
then you're on the wrong side of the road, too!
>ARRL caters to the olde farte mentality, the traditionalists,
> the certificatists, those wishing (sometimes desperately) of a
> lifestyle away from reality so that they achieve some sense of
> self-importance.
Oh...?!?! I see no restrictions on membership by license class.
>Since ARRL has a virtual monopoly on US
> radio amateur publications, ARRL can exercise influence on
> the "amateur community.
I see no exclusivity in the topic matter of any of thier publications,
either.
>ARRL still does not understand that and may not
> until there is a full turnover of all its managers and directors.
The ARRL seems to understand fine. From what informed position do you
make these observations? In what programs are you active? What ARRL field
organizations are you an elected member of?
>Of course...and by extension, all of the ham operating "skills"
> are then based on childhood pursuits or are childlike? Are
> all the olde farte mentalities grounded on some childish game
> of "king of the hill?" Perhaps so.
We see who would be "King Of The Hill", Lennie...
>Now, I'm not criticizing you or your daughter, Bert, but parents
> are seldom able to evaluate their children objectively, regardless
> of their claims.
I am still awaiting Lennie's revelations as to how many children he has
sired and raised. He loves to insist that age limits be imposed on Amateur
Radio, and frequently makes these assertions on how parents are unable to make
objective assessments of thier kids skills, performance, etc.
>Children aren't the issue. Regulations affecting
> the entire citizenry of a country are the issue.
So far you have yet to demonstrate that there is ANY precedent for
changing ANY regulation as a result of negative impact to ANY radio service,
ESPECIALLY Amateur Radio, vis-a-vis licensure of adolescents.
Not one iota.
More unsubstantiated rants from someone with no qualifications from which
to make them.
YA PUTZ!
Steve
Steven J Robeson, LPN
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030306015920...@mb-fi.aol.com>
>Tsk, tsk, tsk..."S25" refers to the entire set of ITU-R
> Recommendations for amateur radio.
Which does not make my previous statement any less true.
>S25.5 does not "limit" anyone...(SNIP)
In this case it does, Lennie, as demonstrated to you by Counsellor Kane on
several occassions before. The entire S25 package has been ratified by the
Congress of the United States and is therefore part of American law.
It DOES limit a LOT of "someones"
>Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
Hurrah for Japan. What part of JAPANESE law am I obliged to observe when
I am NOT in Japanese territorial control?
>>Nothing strange about that...it's been that way for decades.
>
> That it was "always so" is not a valid criterion for an ITU-R
> Recommendation.
You quoted me as saying "always so". That's not what I said. I said
that it's been that way for decades...Certainly a long time, however NOT
"always". Please stop misquoting people.
>Neither is the FCC
>>> "subordinate to Congress." FCC is not part of the Legislative
>>> branch of the US government
>>
>> The FCC is NOT subordinate to the Congress of the United States...?!?!
(My laughter snipped)
>> If you say so, Lennie...if you say so! ! ! ! ! !
>
> No, the US government says so. The Federal Communications
> Commission is an independent agency. It was formerly under
> Department of Commerce, a secretariat.
Again...if you say so, Lennie.
However everyone in this forum with Junior High School US Giovernment
class behind them knows what an idiot you just made yourself in a public
forum...Thanks!
(A government agency NOT subordinate to Congress...Someone had better tell
the Congress! I think they'd like to know!~
BBBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!)
Fourteen years of night school wasted, Lennie.
>"Laugh" all you want, use all the epithets you want...you will not
> change the US government that way, nor the Constitution of the
> United States of America.
Lennie, you spastic idiot, YOU make it soooooooooo easy to LAUGH at you!
The FCC....NOT subordinate to Congress...?!?! WAFIYA ! ! ! ! !
You make my "job" soooooooooo easy! Thanks!
Steve
Dave Heil
>
> "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> > Stop thinking of the code as a barrier. You advance by passing Element 1,
> > that's how.
>
> Yes, yes, that's how I didit. But what of element two? And what of
> people who cannot pass element one?
They fail the exam. They may attempt it again--as many times as is
necessary.
> Dave thinks he's the World's Greatest DXer and is?
Brian, are you attempting to emulate Len or are you a simpleton?
You and only you have used the term "World's Greatest DXer" and
attempted to apply it to me. I've not only never used it to refer to
myself, I've previously corrected you when you've used it. Are you
beyond honesty?
Dave K8MN
Dennis Ferguson
>In article <20030305190222...@mb-cc.aol.com>, k4...@aol.com (Steve
>Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>
>>>> All of the No Code Technicians are in the back of that bus due to
>>>treaties
>>>>signed by the United States, ratified byt the Congress of the United
>>States,
>>>>and NOT subject to unilateral interpretation by the FCC, and agency
>>>subordinate
>>>>to the Congress of the United States...
>>>
>>> Oh, my, were you admitted to a bar this afternoon and thought
>>> you had become a legal beagle? Arf, arf?
>>>
>>> Strange words. According to the FCC, not to mention a couple
>>> of Acts of Congress (one in 1934, another in 1996), only the
>>> FCC created the class of the (no-code-test) Technician license.
>>> Not the US Congress. Not the ITU.
>>
>> S25 limits Amateur Radio licensure to operators with no demonstrated
>>Morse Code proficiency to frequencies above 30 megahertz.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk..."S25" refers to the entire set of ITU-R
> Recommendations for amateur radio.
No it doesn't. S25 is not an ITU-R Recommendation (let alone a set of thiem).
S25 is an Article in the Radio Regulations. If you go to
and attempt to buy the publication which includes S25, you won't find the
document in the ITU-R Recommendations publication section. It is in the
Radio Regulations.
> S25.5 is the specific Recommendation in regards to
> administrations giving International Morse Code testing for
> any amateur radio license having privileges below 30 MHz.
S25.5 is not a Recommendation. It is a paragraph in Article S25 of
the Radio Regulations.
> S25.5 does not "limit" anyone, since it merely indicates
> a frequency below which licensees should (not shall)
> demonstrate the ability to receive International Morse Code
> by ear and send by hand. Note that ITU-R Recommendations
> are just recommendations, not commands or regulations to
> be obeyed.
This is confused, I think. ITU-R Recommendations are standards
documents which are produced by ITU study groups. They are indeed
just recommendations, having no regulatory standing on their own. An
administration may voluntarily choose to incorporate them in their own
regulations if they want to, or sometimes ITU-R Recommendations are
included in the Radio Recommendations by reference, in which case such
Recommendations do become regulations of sorts.
The Radio Regulations, where paragraph S25.5 can be found, are not
ITU-R Recommendations however. They are not produced by ITU study
groups, but rather are the products of World Radiocommunication
Conferences. As the name suggests, the Radio Regulations are
in fact regulations, which member administrations do indeed
agree to obey. In effect the Radio Regulations are a treaty
which administrations enter into, and it would not even surprise me
if the Radio Regulations were subject to congressional ratification
in the US (though I don't know for sure).
> In the USA, the "send by hand" portion of S25.5 is an optional
> waive for all examinations. Administration members of ITU-R
> are not obliged to precisely obey all recommendations.
This is incorrect, Part 97 doesn't make an "optional waive" of any
portion of S25.5. S25.5 says that a licensee must have proven that they
can correctly send by hand, but does not explicitly indicate what
consistutes proof of this. 97.503(a) explicitly (and not coincidentally)
says that
(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the
examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand...
so Part 97 goes out of its way to indicate that such proof is non-optional.
That 97.509(g) says
(g) Passing a telegraphy receiving examination is adequate proof of
an examinee's ability to both send and receive telegraphy
is simply a choice for what constitutes "proof" deemed sufficient to meet
the (non-optional) regulation. Specifying this testing procedure as
sufficient to meet the (unspecified) requirement for proof in S25.5 seems
not inconsistent with the specification of 5 wpm as sufficient testing
speed for S25.5 purposes.
> Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
I have no idea how Japan justified that, but I would be exceedingly
surprised if the US decided to do anything similar.
The US already has the reputation of being an international bad boy
when it comes to both adopting ITU Recommendations (for example, US
telecommunications companies ignore a ream of ITU Recommendations
for transmission facilities in favor of sometimes-nearly-compatible,
sometimes-incompatible ANSI standards; the Internet came to be by
studiously ignoring a different ream of ITU standards documents),
and by insisting that all sorts of exceptions and frequency misalignments
end up being included in the Radio Regulations themselves (often
inspired by military and other government requirements and preferences).
As the major source of international (tele,radio)communications discord in
defence of the interests of both US industry and military, however, the
US does compensate by being religious about observing the letter of
anything they've actually ended up agreeing to do, and that includes
the provisions of the Radio Regulations.
> Administrations are free to impose morse code testing for all
> amateur licensees if they so wish, or partial morse code
> testing for privileges above 30 MHz. It is all up to each nation's
> administrations.
What the US administration isn't free to do, however, is to entirely
eliminate all testing of Morse code skills for privileges below 30 MHz,
since by agreeing to the Radio Regulations the US has agreed to observe
this requirement in its own regulations.
Part 97 completely conforms to the regulations in Radio Regulations
Article S25, as far as I can tell. This won't change unless S25
changes.
Dennis Ferguson
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3E6A42CE...@att.net>...
> Who's sitting it out?
>
> I've worked far more DX than your ever likely to, and I've been DX
> from rarer location than you'll ever be.
But you can't even give verbal confirmation, much less show evidence, Slim.
> I've even managed to operate
> HF OFF of the power mains, at beaches during BBQ's, Jamborees, and
> campouts.
Aw, No $hit?
>
>
> You need to wake up and smell something other than bile.
If you'd get your head out for a moment you could smell something else for once.
Dick Carroll
Dave Heil wrote:
He's beyond rationality.
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E6AC46B...@earthlink.net>...
> > Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Stop thinking of the code as a barrier. You advance by passing Element 1,
> > > > that's how.
> > >
> > > Yes, yes, that's how I didit. But what of element two? And what of
> > > people who cannot pass element one?
> >
> > They fail the exam. They may attempt it again--as many times as is
> > necessary.
>
Give it some study. Ponder it. Let it sink in. Maybe the answer will
come to you.
> > > Dave thinks he's the World's Greatest DXer and is?
> >
> > Brian, are you attempting to emulate Len or are you a simpleton?
>
> Talk like that isn't going to get you anywhere.
It has been my experience that writing (we aren't talking) anything
directed to you doesn't often get through your perma-haze.
> Must it be one or the other? Even the VEC exams offer four choices.
>
> > You and only you have used the term "World's Greatest DXer" and
> > attempted to apply it to me. I've not only never used it to refer to
> > myself, I've previously corrected you when you've used it. Are you
> > beyond honesty?
>
> Sorry. I forgot.
>
> Now I remember. You are God.
Nope, wrong again. You just can't be honest.
Dave K8MN
N2EY
Ferguson) writes:
(exceedingly readable and balanced treatment of S25.5 and how it is a
regulation, not a recommendation, snipped for brevity.)
>> Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
>> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
>I have no idea how Japan justified that, but I would be exceedingly
>surprised if the US decided to do anything similar.
Dennis,
Here's how:
Japan issues ham licenses with HF privileges but with no code test. These are
"4th class" licenses, and Japan uses the following argument to justify not
having a code test for them:
1) The purpose of the ITU treaty is to avoid harmful interference and to
promote orderly use of the radio spectrum.
2) In regards to Japanese amateur radio, two kinds of harmful interference need
to be dealt with: interference to non-amateur radio services of all countries,
and interference to non-Japanese radio amateurs.
3) 4th class Japanese hams' HF privileges are only on frequencies that are
worldwide exclusive amateur, so interference to nonamateur sevices is
prevented.
4) 4th class Japanese hams are only allowed to use very low power on HF (10
watts PEP, as I recall), and Japan is an island nation, so harmful interference
to amateurs of other countries is avoided.
Thus, Japan says it is not in violation of the treaty, because its measures re
4th class licenses meet the goals of the treaty. You may not agree with Japan's
reasoning, but to my knowledge no other country has challenged Japan on it in
at least the past 35 years.
Note that the other three classes of Japanese amateur radio license DO require
a code test.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
(Len Over 21) writes:
>In article <c2356669.03030...@posting.google.com>, N2...@AOL.COM
>(N2EY) writes:
>
>>Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
>>news:<3E659A78...@att.net>...
>>> N2EY wrote:
>>
>>> > Show us some numbers, Len.....
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> All Len will *ever* show is his bare backside.
>>>
>>> AVeryFineSpeciMan indeed.
>>
>>Dick,
>>
>>Why so negative? Perhaps Len has some useful information about ARS
>>license numbers that he hasn't shared yet.
>
> I've "shared" information 5 years ago on the FCC's own database
> (available then, as now, free to the public).
I've posted actual numbers of licensed hams, derived from that database.
> Got arguments and
> charges of "lying" about it...:-)
"Poor baby. Can't you take a little tweak?" (those are your words) ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
>>For example, if he has old
>>Callbooks or CD-ROMs, he could generate a listing of license class
>>totals over various time periods and share it with the newsgroup.
>
> FCC grants US amateur radio licenses, not the Callbook or
> CD-ROMs. :-)
So what's your point?
Do you have actual data to back up your claims or not?
>
> Ever since the restructuring period, the AH0A stat pages have
> lumped the two Technician totals into one pseudo-class.
So what?
I've posted the US license totals right here in this thread and kept Tech
Pluses separate from Techs. 'Taint hard at all.
> That
> was clever for Speroni, an avowed PCTA...
Why?
> especially when the
> no-code-test Technicians can't be readily extracted to show
> the actual growth of non-morse hobbyists in the USA.
So now you finally admit that some Technicians are code tested and some are
not.
> The
> rationales for them "being essentially the same" abound. :-)
From whom?
> One CAN get somewhat-old data from the Speroni stat site
> for a relatively short period before restructuring.
I don't use that data for license totals.
(N2EY)
> has
> never accepted such arguments
What arguments?
All I recall is you claiming over and over that all Techs were non-code-tested
and had no HF privileges - with or without CSCEs.
Perhaps you could refresh my memory?
> since he too is an avowed
> PCTA and insists on the morse code test not being any sort of
> valid reason. :-)
Ah, the old ad hominem attack.
>
>>Such data could either support or work against his claims.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk. In previous numbers games in here,
(N2EY)
> has been steadfast in rationalizing his viewpoints and using
> sources and presentations from those sources which are
> biased towards his own viewpoints (that of an avowed PCTA).
Really? What sources would those be? Callbooks? Do you have other sources that
show different numbers?
>
> ALL of those exchanges are in Google. :-)
So show us some where you prove your points.
>
> The FCC makes the entire US amateur radio license database
> available to the public, updated each week.
And I post the license class totals here twice a month.
> That is the source
> of "Callbook data" and "CD-ROM data" except that downloaders
> often do further sorting for their own purposes. Such sorting and
> tabulation is NOT government approved, just based on
> government data.
So what's your point? The discussion is about historic data.
(N2EY)
> is free to download the FCC data-
> base and sort his own directly.
So are you. You've got the time, and you're the one making the claims about
growth.
>
>>Without
>>such data, those claims are just wild speculation presented as facts.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk! "Wild speculation!" :-)
Yup. About all you do here, Len, besides sling insults ;-)
>
> PCTAs in here seem to be imbued with morsemen's wild hair
> on even the least negative attitude towards morse code's
> macho magnificence.
Where?
> [see Mr.N2EY, Dickiebird, the colonel,
> the flipped-out hostile action hero, and some other bus riders,
> see also Dick and Jane plus Archie from ARRL in old ham
> comic book strips]
And we should look to YOU for guidance??
>
> There's very selective non-acceptance of "facts" in here by the
> PCTA regulars if such facts do not exemplify, honor, and
> revere mighty morse. QED. "It is as demonstrated."
First you need to present some facts.
>
> Since my two Callbooks (same year, different sorting) from the
> mid 1970s long since went to the recycling can...so did my
> three IEEE membership directories (from different years), old
> telephone directories, old industry periodicals and old catalogs...
> stating the personal presence of such data sources is not
> strictly "factual." Factual implies that a data source is available
> for anyone to peruse, reference, or check...and remains un-
> changed in content. Anyone.
Sounds like you really don't have any data, huh Len?
>
> Deliberate biasing of true factual data is bogus, the "wild
> speculation" of
(N2EY)'s
> charge.
Then why do you do it so often, Len? ;-)
> An example is the bundling
> together of the Speroni stats for Technician and Technician-Plus
> so as to mask those that were code tested versus those that
> were not code tested for their licenses.
Guess what, Len: Some Technicians are code tested and some aren't. Both before
and after restructuring.
btw, I'm not AH0A.
(N2EY)
> should busy himself with downloading the weekly FCC
> free databases and sorting them out himself..
Why? You are the one making the claims, you should be doing the data
processing.
> instead of using
> others' databases?
Why duplicate work already done?
> Or prepare another Sermon on the Antenna
> Mount evangelizing the Right Attitude on the worship and
> reverence of morsemanship.
Sounds like you have no data to share.
Len Over 21
>Len Over 21 <leno...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <20030305190222...@mb-cc.aol.com>, k4...@aol.com
>(Steve
>>Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>> Tsk, tsk, tsk..."S25" refers to the entire set of ITU-R
>> Recommendations for amateur radio.
>
>No it doesn't. S25 is not an ITU-R Recommendation (let alone a set of thiem).
>S25 is an Article in the Radio Regulations. If you go to
>
> http://www.itu.int
>
>and attempt to buy the publication which includes S25, you won't find the
>document in the ITU-R Recommendations publication section. It is in the
>Radio Regulations.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, we are getting to fly shit versus pepper level,
aren't we? :-)
One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU if I can get away from paying
for a download...that won't make their documents any less or more.
Second, I call them RECOMMENDATIONS because that's what
ITU-R calls them. Third, there are no, repeat NO International Radio
Police to enforce "regulations." Everything is on an honor system
of each member nation's administration enforcing their OWN national
regulations. Each member nation's administration codifies its own
laws for its own citizens.
>> S25.5 is the specific Recommendation in regards to
>> administrations giving International Morse Code testing for
>> any amateur radio license having privileges below 30 MHz.
>
>S25.5 is not a Recommendation. It is a paragraph in Article S25 of
>the Radio Regulations.
Geez, starting to grade both the pepper grains and the fly shit
for size and color?!?
Are the International Literary Police going to come and arrest
me for not paying enough syntax to you toll house cookie
crumblers demanding EXACTNESS in everything? :-)
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Japan got away with a "violation" of S25.5, didn't
it? Last I was at ITU-R pages, Japan was still a member nation.
>This is confused, I think. ITU-R Recommendations are standards
>documents which are produced by ITU study groups. They are indeed
>just recommendations, having no regulatory standing on their own. An
>administration may voluntarily choose to incorporate them in their own
>regulations if they want to, or sometimes ITU-R Recommendations are
>included in the Radio Recommendations by reference, in which case such
>Recommendations do become regulations of sorts.
>
>The Radio Regulations, where paragraph S25.5 can be found, are not
>ITU-R Recommendations however. They are not produced by ITU study
>groups, but rather are the products of World Radiocommunication
>Conferences. As the name suggests, the Radio Regulations are
>in fact regulations, which member administrations do indeed
>agree to obey. In effect the Radio Regulations are a treaty
>which administrations enter into, and it would not even surprise me
>if the Radio Regulations were subject to congressional ratification
>in the US (though I don't know for sure).
The US Congress has NO power to alter any agreements of a
United Nations organization or any foreign country. Congress
cannot "ratify" those, despite the wishes of certain members of
Congress. Any agency CAN INCLUDE mention of an inter-
national THING (word used to be all encompassing of pepper,
salt, whatever grains, any size) as a definition. That is NOT any
"ratification," just a reference.
>> In the USA, the "send by hand" portion of S25.5 is an optional
>> waive for all examinations. Administration members of ITU-R
>> are not obliged to precisely obey all recommendations.
>
>This is incorrect, Part 97 doesn't make an "optional waive" of any
>portion of S25.5. S25.5 says that a licensee must have proven that they
>can correctly send by hand, but does not explicitly indicate what
>consistutes proof of this. 97.503(a) explicitly (and not coincidentally)
>says that
>
> (a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the
> examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand...
>
>so Part 97 goes out of its way to indicate that such proof is non-optional.
>That 97.509(g) says
>
> (g) Passing a telegraphy receiving examination is adequate proof of
> an examinee's ability to both send and receive telegraphy
>
>is simply a choice for what constitutes "proof" deemed sufficient to meet
>the (non-optional) regulation. Specifying this testing procedure as
>sufficient to meet the (unspecified) requirement for proof in S25.5 seems
>not inconsistent with the specification of 5 wpm as sufficient testing
>speed for S25.5 purposes.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, back to the "fly" thing? :-)
I see that waiver as a WAIVER, some cleverness in wordsmithing,
but it is a WAIVER to me and many others. Obviously your
mileage varies, no doubt the odometer calibrated in a morse shop?
>> Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
>> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
>
>I have no idea how Japan justified that, but I would be exceedingly
>surprised if the US decided to do anything similar.
No idea? I didn't see any different kinds of pepper there in
the three years I was stationed there. Times change, though.
>The US already has the reputation of being an international bad boy
>when it comes to both adopting ITU Recommendations (for example, US
>telecommunications companies ignore a ream of ITU Recommendations
>for transmission facilities in favor of sometimes-nearly-compatible,
>sometimes-incompatible ANSI standards; the Internet came to be by
>studiously ignoring a different ream of ITU standards documents),
>and by insisting that all sorts of exceptions and frequency misalignments
>end up being included in the Radio Regulations themselves (often
>inspired by military and other government requirements and preferences).
? Oh, my, the bad old USA having its flag on fire or something?
Hmmm...the Internet is a "bad thing" and the fault of the USA?
What, for being first and using FOREIGN parts to protocol and
procedure as part of it? Since 1991 it has spread rather far and
fast all over the world...must be the "devil's work" or something?
Yup, Evil Military-Industrial Complex of running-dog Capitalists
created wired telegraphy (since 1844) first in the USA...then the
terrible telephone monopoly of good wired comm of AT&T...while
the first SSB (from The Netherlands) was "ignored" when USA
radio broadcasting spread before WW2...while nasty USA was
the first for color TV using the totally useless "Never The Same
Color" inefficient compatible system was adopted by many
other countries cowed by might of evil USA dictatorship.
>As the major source of international (tele,radio)communications discord in
>defence of the interests of both US industry and military, however, the
>US does compensate by being religious about observing the letter of
>anything they've actually ended up agreeing to do, and that includes
>the provisions of the Radio Regulations.
Dennis, did you volunteer to be a "human shield" and were
rejected? Are you Yurp born?
As to "discord," let me remind you that the IARU has suggested
a nearly FULL REWRITE of ALL parts of S25, while ARRL (a
USA membership thing and amateur regulator wannabe) has
taken a neutral position on S25.5. Neutral, no opinion.
>> Administrations are free to impose morse code testing for all
>> amateur licensees if they so wish, or partial morse code
>> testing for privileges above 30 MHz. It is all up to each nation's
>> administrations.
>
>What the US administration isn't free to do, however, is to entirely
>eliminate all testing of Morse code skills for privileges below 30 MHz,
>since by agreeing to the Radio Regulations the US has agreed to observe
>this requirement in its own regulations.
Oh? They are "not free?!?" Will the International Radio Police
attack the USA if we don't conform to all those Radio
Regulations? I don't think so. There is no "IRP."
There is only the Honor Obligation in any treaty or agreement. On
ANY subject.
>Part 97 completely conforms to the regulations in Radio Regulations
>Article S25, as far as I can tell. This won't change unless S25
>changes.
Sorry, it does NOT "conform completely." We've been over that
in another set of messages. The FCC has not YET corrected
its morse code definition reference. There is NO, repeat NO
equivalent word rate for "receiving by ear" or "sending by hand"
in any of S25. The USA could simply say test element 1 be
done at an equivalent word rate of 1 WPM (as an example).
That would "conform" just fine since there is NO ITU-R rate
given.
Len Over 21
writes:
>> Or prepare another Sermon on the Antenna
>> Mount evangelizing the Right Attitude on the worship and
>> reverence of morsemanship.
>
>Sounds like you have no data to share.
Poor baby...that bowl of ad hominem grits upset your tummy?
I'm just waiting for your Sermon, Reverend Jim. :-)
Len Over 21
writes:
>Brian wrote:
>>
>> Sorry. I forgot.
>>
>> Now I remember. You are God.
>
>Nope, wrong again. You just can't be honest.
You are NOT God?!?!?!?
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3E6B5923...@att.net>...
> I'm not the one who sends poorly formed Morse Code character to foil
> attempts by less than worthy No-Code Techs from copying my secret
> messages with a computer.
Just for the record- nether am I! Why would you conclude that I'd find it desireable
to waste my time
doing such a thing just because I once said it'spossible? We know, all this is just
some more of your
juvenile lamebrain output.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3E6A429...@att.net>...
>
> > I'm sure you said that in jest.... the one thing he's never showed us
> > is real
> > information re ham radio. And never will.
>
> Yep. Ham radio is magically different from other forms of radio.
> Different physics or something. For example, you cannot use
> 468/f(MHz) outside of ham radio.
>
So that isn't really *ham radio* information, is it?
>
> DICK, you're a hoot.
You're a simpleton.
N2EY
(Len Over 21) writes:
>In article <20030309185413...@mb-fz.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
>writes:
>
>
>
>>> Or prepare another Sermon on the Antenna
>>> Mount evangelizing the Right Attitude on the worship and
>>> reverence of morsemanship.
>>
>>Sounds like you have no data to share.
>
> Poor baby...that bowl of ad hominem grits upset your tummy?
Ah - so you admit to ad hominem attacks rather than presenting actual data to
back up your arguments.
>
> I'm just waiting for your Sermon, Reverend Jim. :-)
>
As suspected, Len Over 21 (that's his real name, right?) has no data to
present, no factual basis for his wild speculations, and just wants to sling
insults.
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030309230411...@mb-ba.aol.com>
>Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, we are getting to fly shit versus pepper level,
> aren't we?
Having once again been "bested" in newsgroup messaging, Lennie once again
reverts to profanity to try and get his "point" across.
>One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU...(SNIP)
That's alright, Lennie, we don't "buy" anything from you, either.
>>> S25.5 is the specific Recommendation in regards to
>>> administrations giving International Morse Code testing for
>>> any amateur radio license having privileges below 30 MHz.
>>
>>S25.5 is not a Recommendation. It is a paragraph in Article S25 of
>>the Radio Regulations.
>
> Geez, starting to grade both the pepper grains and the fly shit
> for size and color?!?
Again, caught with his zipper down (not that we'll actually SEE
anything...) Lennie refers to FACTS vs his FICTION as "pepper grains" as
opposed to "fly (excrement)".
>Are the International Literary Police going to come and arrest
> me for not paying enough syntax to you toll house cookie
> crumblers demanding EXACTNESS in everything?
THIS is cute...Mr. "I Am A Radio Professional" trying to bail himself out
from NOT being able to specifiy facts in a radio regulation matter...
Sheesh!
>The US Congress has NO power to alter any agreements of a
> United Nations organization or any foreign country. Congress
> cannot "ratify" those, despite the wishes of certain members of
> Congress. Any agency CAN INCLUDE mention of an inter-
> national THING (word used to be all encompassing of pepper,
> salt, whatever grains, any size) as a definition. That is NOT any
> "ratification," just a reference.
You've already been proven wrong and Phil Kane did a nice job of doing it.
Need another spanking, Lennie, or still stinging from the first?
>Oh, my, the bad old USA having its flag on fire or something?
Hmmmmmm.....First you try to embellish your military "career" by
misrepresenting your relationship with Army KIA's from the "active" phase of
the Korean War.
NOW you are making fun of the United States as a whole and seemingly
supporting the idea of flag burning.
Scumbag.
>There is only the Honor Obligation in any treaty or agreement. On
> ANY subject.
What would YOU know of "honor"...?!?!
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 3/8/03 8:45 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <f45722ac.0303...@posting.google.com>
>So people think they have cancer and die?
>They think they're going to have a heart attack and die?
Unfortunately for them (and especially your rant), yes, they do.
It IS a known phenomena and does happen.
>Dave thinks he's the World's Greatest DXer and is?
I haven't seen Dave say this, however I see him in DX columns from time to
time (ie: 5H3US). However I do NOT see "N0IMD" in ANY of those columns. ( I
ESPECIALLY do NOT see T5/N0IMD in any of those columns...)
Maybe not the "World's Greatest", but certainly better than YOU, Brian...
Len Over 21
writes:
>In article <20030310002543...@mb-fc.aol.com>, leno...@aol.com
>(Len Over 21) writes:
>
>>In article <20030309185413...@mb-fz.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com
>(N2EY)
>>writes:
>>
>>>> Or prepare another Sermon on the Antenna
>>>> Mount evangelizing the Right Attitude on the worship and
>>>> reverence of morsemanship.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you have no data to share.
>>
>> Poor baby...that bowl of ad hominem grits upset your tummy?
>
>Ah - so you admit to ad hominem attacks rather than presenting actual data to
>back up your arguments.
Noooo. :-) It's what you served up for your own meal. :-)
>> I'm just waiting for your Sermon, Reverend Jim. :-)
>>
>As suspected, Len Over 21 (that's his real name, right?) has no data to
>present, no factual basis for his wild speculations, and just wants to sling
>insults.
Poor baby. Everything contrary is "wild speculation" but anything
in agreement with your melifluous magnificent mumbling is hard,
factual evidence? :-)
Tsk, tsk, tsk. This newsgroup has gone round and round on
the numbers game before and you must have your way and
only your way on interpretation of the numbers. Sounds more
like a con game for the Right Attitude...with a lot of self-
righteousness on Your Way is the Only Way. :-)
Everyone is still waiting for the Sermon on the Antenna Mount.
We missed you this Sunday. [we'll aim better next time...]
Try to be Serious now. Amateur radio is all about Work, Study,
Devotion, Upgrading, and Working DX on HF with CW. It isn't
a hobby...it is a Service. Try to instill that in the masses, the
ignorant inferior beings who have not seen the Greater Glory of
Morse Magnificence! :-)
Len Over 21
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>>Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, we are getting to fly shit versus pepper level,
>> aren't we?
>
> Having once again been "bested" in newsgroup messaging, Lennie once
>again reverts to profanity to try and get his "point" across.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, the magificent marine (ex) of 18 1/2 years thinks
the word "shit" is profanity?!?! :-)
Oh, my, and the magnificent marine (ex) has signed off as
"putz" so many times! Oy gevalt!
>>One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU...(SNIP)
>
> That's alright, Lennie, we don't "buy" anything from you, either.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...editing and snipping pieces out of context.
I've purchased four downloads from the ITU. One of them was
the referenced document (from CCITT) on morse code
definitions given in Part 97, the only download from ITU about
amateur radio. There was a go-around in here some while back
on that morse definition document. Must have slipped your
mind. [not difficult, it seems]
> Again, caught with his zipper down (not that we'll actually SEE
>anything...) Lennie refers to FACTS vs his FICTION as "pepper grains" as
>opposed to "fly (excrement)".
Tsk, tsk, tsk...a colloquial phrase (that means in common use
among the people) was NOT the subject, was it?
The subject was "Regulation" versus "Recommendation" in ITU-R.
Dennis Ferguson argues for exactness in naming, implying the
international law thing. I argue for "Recommendation" from the
ITU-R Study Groups as extending to all "regulations" on the basis
of a common-agreement honor thing by all member parties.
Steam Robespierre can only wave his scatological sabre wildly
trying to get into the act. Bad acting. [play closed in
Chatanooga...]
> THIS is cute...Mr. "I Am A Radio Professional" trying to bail himself out
>from NOT being able to specifiy facts in a radio regulation matter...
Tsk, tsk, tsk...send out the International Literary Police! :-)
> You've already been proven wrong and Phil Kane did a nice job of doing
it.
> Need another spanking, Lennie, or still stinging from the first?
There's been NO "proven wrong" since there is no International
Radio Police to enforce the ITU-R "regulations." US citizens on
US territory are subject to US law, not some "international law."
It's the difference between "de facto" and "de jure."
Codified US law may reference "international laws" as part of
US law, but, still US citizens are subject to US law on US
territory. That's "de jure." Fancy word, Latin origin, look it up
and learn something.
Too many folks interpret "international laws" as applying directly
to themselves/whatever, the same as US law on US territory.
Actually, what has happened is that US law on US territory has
referenced the international thing AS IF the international laws
applied. That's "de facto." US laws apply on US territory, none
other, regardless of the spin applied by certain legal wordsmiths.
If you don't understand the difference between de jure and de
facto as applying to the discussion, then all you are doing is
just another useless flame war Hostile Action. Tsk, tsk,.tsk.
> Hmmmmmm.....First you try to embellish your military "career" by
>misrepresenting your relationship with Army KIA's from the "active" phase of
>the Korean War.
Firstly, personal military experience was NOT in the discussion
thread.
Secondly, what began as the 71st Signal Service Battalion, US
Army, back in 1946 as part of the US Army of Occupation in
Japan remains today as the 78th Signal Service Battalion at
Camp Zama, Japan, under the 516th Signal Brigade at Fort
Shafter, Hawaii, as part of US Army Pacific. I was assigned to
the 71st Sig Svc Bn on Februrary, 1953. 19 members of the 71st
died on 1 July 1950, ordered there by Far East Command Hq to
support Korean communications at the outbreak of the Korean War.
That is NOT "embellishment," simply known historical fact in the
history of USARPAC.
Third, try to stay focussed on the thread SUBJECT instead of
nursing old, aggravated ego wounds from long ago messaging.
> NOW you are making fun of the United States as a whole and seemingly
>supporting the idea of flag burning.
Poor baby...terrible reading comprehension...tsk, tsk, tsk.
> Scumbag.
>
> What would YOU know of "honor"...?!?!
That pretty much sums up the interest of this extraordinary
amateur extra in this newsgroup...fight, fight, fight in a
continuous set of hostile actions in messages. :-)
Now, do you have any data to share on ARS license numbers?
Remember that you must be Serious, just like Reverend Jim.
N2EY
(Len Over 21) writes:
>In article <b4ejii$2fbs$1...@heap.juniper.net>, den...@wawa.juniper.net (Dennis
>Ferguson) writes:
>
>>Len Over 21 <leno...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In article <20030305190222...@mb-cc.aol.com>, k4...@aol.com
>>(Steve
>>>Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>
>>> Tsk, tsk, tsk..."S25" refers to the entire set of ITU-R
>>> Recommendations for amateur radio.
>>
>>No it doesn't. S25 is not an ITU-R Recommendation (let alone a set of
>thiem).
>>S25 is an Article in the Radio Regulations. If you go to
>>
>> http://www.itu.int
>>
>>and attempt to buy the publication which includes S25, you won't find the
>>document in the ITU-R Recommendations publication section. It is in the
>>Radio Regulations.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Yes, tsk, tsk, tsk. One would think Len Over 21 would know the difference
between a Recommendation and a Regulation.
>Well, we are getting to
(expletive deleted)
> versus pepper level,
> aren't we? :-)
>
Nope ;-)
We're at the 'Len Over 21 made an error and won't admit it' level.
> One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU if I can get away from paying
> for a download...that won't make their documents any less or more.
Irrelevant.
> Second, I call them RECOMMENDATIONS because that's what
> ITU-R calls them.
No, ITU-R calls them 'regulations'.
> Third, there are no, repeat NO International Radio
> Police to enforce "regulations."
So?
Is a regulation not a regulation if there are no 'police' around?
> Everything is on an honor system
> of each member nation's administration enforcing their OWN national
> regulations. Each member nation's administration codifies its own
> laws for its own citizens.
And the USA has agreed to follow the ITU-R regulations.
>
>>> S25.5 is the specific Recommendation in regards to
>>> administrations giving International Morse Code testing for
>>> any amateur radio license having privileges below 30 MHz.
>>
>>S25.5 is not a Recommendation. It is a paragraph in Article S25 of
>>the Radio Regulations.
>
> Geez, starting to grade both the pepper grains and the
(expletive deleted)
> for size and color?!?
No, Mr. Ferguson is just correcting your error. Live with it. ;-) ;-)
>
> Are the International Literary Police going to come and arrest
> me for not paying enough syntax to you toll house cookie
> crumblers demanding EXACTNESS in everything? :-)
Is there a problem with accuracy? ;-)
> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Japan got away with a "violation" of S25.5, didn't
> it?
No.
> Last I was at ITU-R pages, Japan was still a member nation.
>
Do you think the USA should adopt Japan's type of no-code-test HF amateur
license?
>>This is confused, I think. ITU-R Recommendations are standards
>>documents which are produced by ITU study groups. They are indeed
>>just recommendations, having no regulatory standing on their own. An
>>administration may voluntarily choose to incorporate them in their own
>>regulations if they want to, or sometimes ITU-R Recommendations are
>>included in the Radio Recommendations by reference, in which case such
>>Recommendations do become regulations of sorts.
>>
>>The Radio Regulations, where paragraph S25.5 can be found, are not
>>ITU-R Recommendations however. They are not produced by ITU study
>>groups, but rather are the products of World Radiocommunication
>>Conferences. As the name suggests, the Radio Regulations are
>>in fact regulations, which member administrations do indeed
>>agree to obey. In effect the Radio Regulations are a treaty
>>which administrations enter into, and it would not even surprise me
>>if the Radio Regulations were subject to congressional ratification
>>in the US (though I don't know for sure).
>
> The US Congress has NO power to alter any agreements of a
> United Nations organization or any foreign country. Congress
> cannot "ratify" those, despite the wishes of certain members of
> Congress. Any agency CAN INCLUDE mention of an inter-
> national THING (word used to be all encompassing of pepper,
> salt, whatever grains, any size) as a definition. That is NOT any
> "ratification," just a reference.
Phil Kane has told us here that ITU-R is a treaty and is ratified by the
Senate. IS Phil Kane mistaken about that?
>
>>> In the USA, the "send by hand" portion of S25.5 is an optional
>>> waive for all examinations. Administration members of ITU-R
>>> are not obliged to precisely obey all recommendations.
>>
>>This is incorrect, Part 97 doesn't make an "optional waive" of any
>>portion of S25.5. S25.5 says that a licensee must have proven that they
>>can correctly send by hand, but does not explicitly indicate what
>>consistutes proof of this. 97.503(a) explicitly (and not coincidentally)
>>says that
>>
>> (a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the
>> examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand...
>>
>>so Part 97 goes out of its way to indicate that such proof is non-optional.
>>That 97.509(g) says
>>
>> (g) Passing a telegraphy receiving examination is adequate proof of
>> an examinee's ability to both send and receive telegraphy
>>
>>is simply a choice for what constitutes "proof" deemed sufficient to meet
>>the (non-optional) regulation. Specifying this testing procedure as
>>sufficient to meet the (unspecified) requirement for proof in S25.5 seems
>>not inconsistent with the specification of 5 wpm as sufficient testing
>>speed for S25.5 purposes.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, back to the "fly" thing? :-)
No, Mr. Ferguson is just correcting your error. Live with it. ;-) ;-)
>
> I see that waiver as a WAIVER, some cleverness in wordsmithing,
> but it is a WAIVER to me and many others.
Who else?
> Obviously your
> mileage varies, no doubt the odometer calibrated in a morse shop?
>
No, Mr. Ferguson is just correcting your error. Live with it. ;-) ;-)
>>> Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
>>> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
No, they did not.
>>
>>I have no idea how Japan justified that, but I would be exceedingly
>>surprised if the US decided to do anything similar.
Here's how:
Japan issues ham licenses with HF privileges but with no code test. These are
"4th class" licenses, and Japan uses the following argument to justify not
having a code test for them:
1) The purpose of the ITU treaty is to avoid harmful interference and to
promote orderly use of the radio spectrum.
2) In regards to Japanese amateur radio, two kinds of harmful interference need
to be dealt with: interference to non-amateur radio services of all countries,
and interference to non-Japanese radio amateurs.
3) 4th class Japanese hams' HF privileges are only on frequencies that are
worldwide exclusive amateur, so interference to nonamateur sevices is
prevented.
4) 4th class Japanese hams are only allowed to use very low power on HF (10
watts PEP, as I recall), and Japan is an island nation, so harmful interference
to amateurs of other countries is avoided.
Thus, Japan says it is not in violation of the treaty, because its measures re
4th class licenses meet the goals of the treaty. You may or may not agree with
Japan's reasoning, but to my knowledge no other country has challenged Japan on
it in at least the past 35 years.
>
> No idea? I didn't see any different kinds of pepper there in
> the three years I was stationed there. Times change, though.
Where there no-code-test Japanese hams back then? ;-)
>>The US already has the reputation of being an international bad boy
>>when it comes to both adopting ITU Recommendations (for example, US
>>telecommunications companies ignore a ream of ITU Recommendations
>>for transmission facilities in favor of sometimes-nearly-compatible,
>>sometimes-incompatible ANSI standards; the Internet came to be by
>>studiously ignoring a different ream of ITU standards documents),
>>and by insisting that all sorts of exceptions and frequency misalignments
>>end up being included in the Radio Regulations themselves (often
>>inspired by military and other government requirements and preferences).
>
> ? Oh, my, the bad old USA having its flag on fire or something?
The correct way to dispose of an American flag is by burning.
> Hmmm...the Internet is a "bad thing" and the fault of the USA?
> What, for being first and using FOREIGN parts to protocol and
> procedure as part of it? Since 1991 it has spread rather far and
> fast all over the world...must be the "devil's work" or something?
>
> Yup, Evil Military-Industrial Complex of running-dog Capitalists
> created wired telegraphy (since 1844) first in the USA...then the
> terrible telephone monopoly of good wired comm of AT&T...while
> the first SSB (from The Netherlands) was "ignored" when USA
> radio broadcasting spread before WW2...while nasty USA was
> the first for color TV using the totally useless "Never The Same
> Color" inefficient compatible system was adopted by many
> other countries cowed by might of evil USA dictatorship.
What does any of that have to do with ITU-R regulations?
>
>>As the major source of international (tele,radio)communications discord in
>>defence of the interests of both US industry and military, however, the
>>US does compensate by being religious about observing the letter of
>>anything they've actually ended up agreeing to do, and that includes
>>the provisions of the Radio Regulations.
>
> Dennis, did you volunteer to be a "human shield" and were
> rejected? Are you Yurp born?
No smiley?
>
> As to "discord," let me remind you that the IARU has suggested
> a nearly FULL REWRITE of ALL parts of S25, while ARRL (a
> USA membership thing and amateur regulator wannabe) has
> taken a neutral position on S25.5. Neutral, no opinion.
As in "neither support nor oppose". Which could change at any time.
>
>>> Administrations are free to impose morse code testing for all
>>> amateur licensees if they so wish, or partial morse code
>>> testing for privileges above 30 MHz. It is all up to each nation's
>>> administrations.
>>
>>What the US administration isn't free to do, however, is to entirely
>>eliminate all testing of Morse code skills for privileges below 30 MHz,
>>since by agreeing to the Radio Regulations the US has agreed to observe
>>this requirement in its own regulations.
>
> Oh? They are "not free?!?"
Nope.
> Will the International Radio Police
> attack the USA if we don't conform to all those Radio
> Regulations? I don't think so. There is no "IRP."
>
> There is only the Honor Obligation in any treaty or agreement. On
> ANY subject.
And FCC has repeatedly said the remaining code test would NOT be eliminated as
long as the treaty remains as-is. Is FCC "wrong"?
>
>>Part 97 completely conforms to the regulations in Radio Regulations
>>Article S25, as far as I can tell. This won't change unless S25
>>changes.
>
> Sorry, it does NOT "conform completely." We've been over that
> in another set of messages.
How?
> The FCC has not YET corrected
> its morse code definition reference.
So? Would that change anything?
> There is NO, repeat NO
> equivalent word rate for "receiving by ear" or "sending by hand"
> in any of S25.
What do you suggest?
> The USA could simply say test element 1 be
> done at an equivalent word rate of 1 WPM (as an example).
WHY? Would that make any difference to anyone?
> That would "conform" just fine since there is NO ITU-R rate
> given.
So? What difference would it make? Some might even say that 1 wpm is actually
harder to read than 5 wpm.
N2EY
>N2EY wrote:
>
>> Dick Carroll <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:<3E659A78...@att.net>...
>> > N2EY wrote:
>>
>> > > Show us some numbers, Len.....
>> >
>> > snip
>> >
>> > All Len will *ever* show is his bare backside.
>> >
>> > AVeryFineSpeciMan indeed.
>>
>> Dick,
>>
>> Why so negative?
>
> Welllll..., Jim, you know the rules--- two negatives make one positive!
Only when multiplied.
>> Perhaps Len has some useful information about ARS
>> license numbers that he hasn't shared yet.
>
>I'm sure you said that in jest....
Not at all.
> the one thing he's never showed us
>is real
>information re ham radio. And never will.
>
Len has shared plenty of real information re ham radio. Most of it was things
we already knew, like 'the FCC regulates ALL US civilian radio services' and
such.
>
What he hasn't shared is any real info backing up his claims of growth in
various license classes.
>> For example, if he has old
>> Callbooks or CD-ROMs, he could generate a listing of license class
>> totals over various time periods and share it with the newsgroup.
>
> Yeah, Right! as if.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's impossible. Just highly
improbable.
>
>> Such data could either support or work against his claims. Without
>> such data, those claims are just wild speculation presented as facts.
>
> That's all he has ever had, all he ever will.
>
Well, there you have it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <f45722ac.03031...@posting.google.com>
>So we can do away with the Cleveland clinic and just have people think
>themselves to wellness.
In some cases, yes. Good mental health and proper attitudes towards
wellness are documented pathologies. Sorry you find that hard to believe.
>Maybe I just have to wish harder?
You've already tried that and see what it got you...?!?!
You have to TRY harder...you know...actually DO it...?!?!
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030310140535...@mb-cs.aol.com>
>Tsk, tsk, tsk, the magificent marine (ex) of 18 1/2 years thinks
> the word "shit" is profanity?!?!
Yep. I do. If I wouldn't say a particular word in "mixed" company or in
front of a minister, it fails the "profanity" check list.
But you are STILL a putz.
>I've purchased four downloads from the ITU.
Still waiting for the color-by-numbers version so you can really
understand...?!?!
>Tsk, tsk, tsk...a colloquial phrase (that means in common use
> among the people) was NOT the subject, was it?
Doesn't matter what the subject was, Lennie...What matters is that an
alleged college educated "professional" can't express himself without reverting
to such profanities.
>Steam Robespierre can only wave his scatological sabre wildly
> trying to get into the act. Bad acting. [play closed in
> Chatanooga...]
Whew...guess we can't hold Lennie's feet to the fire over accuaracy
anymore, eh...?!?! But of course HE will do that to us...
>> THIS is cute...Mr. "I Am A Radio Professional" trying to bail himself
>out
>>from NOT being able to specifiy facts in a radio regulation matter...
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk...send out the International Literary Police!
What literary police, Your Scumminess? We are discussing radio
regulations, a subject in which an alleged radio professional SHOULD be able to
demonstrate SOME understanding in...Obviously you can't.
>> You've already been proven wrong and Phil Kane did a nice job of doing
>it.
>> Need another spanking, Lennie, or still stinging from the first?
>
> There's been NO "proven wrong" since there is no International
> Radio Police to enforce the ITU-R "regulations." US citizens on
> US territory are subject to US law, not some "international law."
You were wrong, Lennie...You were wrong before, you are wrong now. Don't
need any "Radio Police" to prove or disprove it...Just reading your rants then
refering to the actual regulations show you are wrong.
Sorry.
>If you don't understand the difference between de jure and de
> facto as applying to the discussion, then all you are doing is
> just another useless flame war Hostile Action. Tsk, tsk,.tsk.
No flame war, Lennie. You are wrong. Sorry you can't accept it.
>Firstly, personal military experience was NOT in the discussion
> thread.
So what? Wrong is wrong...
(Having chastiswed me for what is or is not part of the thread, Lennie
launches into a recital of his former unit's heraldry...as if we care...)
>Secondly, what began as the 71st Signal Service Battalion, US...(SNIP)
And then he follows with...
>Third, try to stay focussed on the thread SUBJECT instead of
> nursing old, aggravated ego wounds from long ago messaging.
I see who's nursing what, Lennie.
> Now, do you have any data to share on ARS license numbers?
Do you? Any intentions on living up to your bravado on getting that
Extra-lite out of the box, Your Lyingship, or just more continuous
excuse-excuse-excuse...?!?!
>Remember that you must be Serious, just like Reverend Jim.
I see YOU have a problem with seriousness, Lennie.
Sheesh...PUTZ!
Steve
N2EY
> "N2EY" wrote:
> >
> > If the 'average' ham is licensed 50 years (!) (snip)
>
>
> Wow, and you questioned my assumptions.
HAW!!!
> Actually, I like the numbers
> though. If true, that means I have about 46 more years to go - which will
> make me about 90+ years old in the end.
Works for me. Actually, I'm hoping to reach at least the 75 year mark,
Lord willing, and bust the curve.
> At that point, I guess I'll drop out
> of ham radio and go into deep sea diving or something. :)
>
> And, yes, I do know what you're trying to say. I'm just trying to lighten
> up the conversation a little (see below).
Understood.
Gotta wonder what the actual average ham "career" is, though.
>
> > If anyone actually does this calculation, I predict
> > the dropout rate will not be much different for the
> > various license classes.
> I'll take your word for it, Jim. My original comments were just a
> knee-jerk reaction to my first impression of the numbers. Because of that,
> I'm certainly not going to defend them through an in-depth study using the
> steps you've outlined.
>
Really kind of a strange bunch of rules the FCC has. They issue ham
licenses with a term of 3652 or 3653 days, but the renewal window is
only 90 days. That's....ummmm.....2.4% of the license term. Once upon
a time they'd do a renewal with an upgrade or modification if you
asked, which would save us and them some paperwork, but no more. Only
a vanity application gets you a renewal outside the 90 day window.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 3/11/03 1:24 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <f45722ac.03031...@posting.google.com>
>OK, i'll try harder to not have cancer
Veeeeery good! Now you have the idea...And since cancer awareness is now
at the forefront of your conciousness (and we all know what a short trip THAT
is...) remember that this includes lifestyle and dietary management.
So one thing must lead to the other. Will it GUARNTEE you will never get
cancer...?!?! Of course not. But it certainly means your chances are lowered.
Now...see how EASY that was...?!?!
Steve
Len Over 21
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>>Tsk, tsk, tsk, the magificent marine (ex) of 18 1/2 years thinks
>> the word "shit" is profanity?!?!
>
> Yep. I do. If I wouldn't say a particular word in "mixed" company or in
>front of a minister, it fails the "profanity" check list.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...no wonder you were kicked out of the corpse
with a medical. Overgrown prissy puritanism. :-)
> But you are STILL a putz.
PROFANITY!!!! You shouldn't use such a word in front of a
rabbi!
>>I've purchased four downloads from the ITU.
>
> Still waiting for the color-by-numbers version so you can really
>understand...?!?!
No, you prissy profane ex-corpseman, ITU doesn't have any
"color-by-numbers" documents.
The other three were for other radio services than amateur.
> Doesn't matter what the subject was, Lennie...What matters is that an
>alleged college educated "professional" can't express himself without
>reverting to such profanities.
Awwww...your prissy puritanism is offended again? :-)
>>Steam Robespierre can only wave his scatological sabre wildly
>> trying to get into the act. Bad acting. [play closed in
>> Chatanooga...]
>
> Whew...guess we can't hold Lennie's feet to the fire over accuaracy
>anymore, eh...?!?! But of course HE will do that to us...
Tsk, tsk, tsk...rage-induced typographical errors again... :-)
> What literary police, Your Scumminess? We are discussing radio
>regulations, a subject in which an alleged radio professional SHOULD be able
>to demonstrate SOME understanding in...Obviously you can't.
Poor baby...confused as to Word Titles Being More Important
Than Word Content again?
"Regulations" to me are codified laws or orders which are enforced
by lawful parties.
"Recommendations" are just that...what is recommended as a
working standard for the benefit of all participants. The only
"enforcement" is on an honor system. No "police" will come and
take one away or issue fines for use of some method other than
what was recommended.
> You were wrong, Lennie...You were wrong before, you are wrong now. Don't
>need any "Radio Police" to prove or disprove it...Just reading your rants then
>refering to the actual regulations show you are wrong.
Prissy puritanical regulation-waiving confrontationalism doesn't
take away anything that I said, corpseman.
If the ITU wants to make final voted issues "regulations," they
can write it all they want. They are still just Recommendations,
working standards upheld on an honor system.
> (Having chastiswed me for what is or is not part of the thread, Lennie
>launches into a recital of his former unit's heraldry...as if we care...)
Poor baby...you got "chastiswed?" You married a chaste ?
Your charles got twisted?
"Heraldry?" Coats of arms? Pretty flags, ribbons, symbols to
make it easy for illiterate peasants to worship mighty knights?
Poor baby...all image you are, no substance.
I just repeated what I wrote before on the HISTORY of my US
Army Battalion and its evolution from 1946 to today. No
"embellishment" there but rather a condensation of 57 years
of specific history of a single unit.
> Do you? Any intentions on living up to your bravado on getting that
>Extra-lite out of the box, Your Lyingship, or just more continuous
>excuse-excuse-excuse...?!?!
You are hardly a role model for becoming an extra anything,
prissy puritanical yet profane corpseman.
> I see YOU have a problem with seriousness, Lennie.
>
> Sheesh...PUTZ!
Call a rabbi that, Sgt Putzman...see how "serious" you are.
Using a Jewish-ethnic middle-european pejorative doesn't
make it any less profane. "Putz" is synonymous with the
American pejorative "dickhead."
The word "putz" is also middle-European, a colloquialism
referring to "polish" (as in polishing silver, not to Poland).
The etymology leading to putz-as-a-pejorative refers to
someone constantly polishing their male organ as if to show
how mighty and macho they are...(their brains are in their
penis, hence the anglo form "dickhead").
Once again Sgt Putzman shows a reflection of himself in
trying to attempt intellectual discourse. He has to learn
which side of the mirror to hold up... :-)
Len Over 21
writes:
>We're at the 'Len Over 21 made an error and won't admit it' level.
Sorry, bubeleh, Leonard H. Anderson (screen name of LenOver21)
made a statement about RECOMMENDATION versus Regulation
before and still holds to that.
Hello? I keep saying RECOMMENDATION because that is all
what the ITU-R "Radio Regulations" are...a common-agreement,
honored set of standards. Not binding in law as we citizens of a
country are bound...there is no enforcement arm of the ITU...just
agreements.
>> One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU if I can get away from paying
>> for a download...that won't make their documents any less or more.
>
>Irrelevant.
Your remark is irrelevant and confrontational.
>> Second, I call them RECOMMENDATIONS because that's what
>> ITU-R calls them.
>
>No, ITU-R calls them 'regulations'.
They are RECOMMENDATIONS until voted during a WRC. After
that they are "Radio Regulations." Those "regulations" are still
nothing more than RECOMMENDATIONS. There is no crime
committed if a country goes against those "regulations" because
those RECOMMENDATIONS (called "regulations") are not law
of any country.
>> Third, there are no, repeat NO International Radio
>> Police to enforce "regulations."
>
>So?
>Is a regulation not a regulation if there are no 'police' around?
The ITU-R "regulations" are NOT law.
>(expletive deleted)
Tsk, tsk, tsk, another Priscilla Goodbody, prim, proper, and
prissy pedantic victorian. Like an ex-marine corpseman in
here.
Oh, excuse me, you wouldn't know about such things as never
having served your country...
>> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Japan got away with a "violation" of S25.5, didn't
>> it?
>
>No.
Poor baby...Reverend Jim thinks he is one of the Supremes.
There is NO "violation" of a non-law. If Japan could do what it did,
so can the United States or any other member nation of the ITU.
Perhaps the only reasons the USA hasn't done the same is the
political pandering by olde farte morsemen...and that amateur radio
is not a vital asset to the USA. It isn't worth the effort.
>Do you think the USA should adopt Japan's type of no-code-test HF amateur
>license?
Reverend Jim, I think you should quit snorting the cheap stuff
and not become such confrontational pedant with these
subject misdirections.
>Phil Kane has told us here that ITU-R is a treaty and is ratified by the
>Senate. IS Phil Kane mistaken about that?
Phil Kane is an attorney but he is NOT a Judge of the ITU Court
or even any Supreme Court.
Membership in the United Nations by administrative and legislative
processes signifies that the United States honors the UN bodies'
purposes, goals, and member obligations. Has the Congress of
the United States "ratifiied" anything specific about the Radio part
of the International Telecommunications Union? I don't think so.
Has Congress of the US specifically "ratified" obeyance of S25.5?
No.
Go kiss my yes.
>Who else?
You don't have a need to know. Go kiss my yes.
>>>> Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
>>>> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
>
>No, they did not.
Yes they did. For a few decades at that. While S25.5 doesn't
say much, it is quite specific about testing for International
Morse Code with reception by ear and sending by hand for ANY
amateur radio license having below-30-MHz privileges.
The Japanese have an amateur radio license for below-30-MHz
privileges that does not require testing for morse code. You
cannot say they don't because they do. S25.5 is specific enough
in what it says.
Go kiss my yes.
>Thus, Japan says it is not in violation of the treaty, because its measures re
>4th class licenses meet the goals of the treaty. You may or may not agree with
>Japan's reasoning, but to my knowledge no other country has challenged Japan
on
>it in at least the past 35 years.
Miccolis is NOT on some Supreme Court of the ITU or the USA
despite trying to act like a member of same. Your black robes
are invisible. [the little barrister wig IS helpful...]
>> No idea? I didn't see any different kinds of pepper there in
>> the three years I was stationed there. Times change, though.
>
>Where there no-code-test Japanese hams back then? ;-)
Doesn't the renowned amateur radio Historian KNOW?!?
Who cares? You weren't alive yet at that time. I was busy
doing military communications for Far East Command Hq.
That's professional radio work. My battalion got two Presidential
Unit Citations for signal work while I was assigned to it.
>The correct way to dispose of an American flag is by burning.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, not a LAW about that. The only LAW passed
was a code of etiquette on display and handling of the USA
flag. I know that law cite. Do you? Are you a USA citizen?
>What does any of that have to do with ITU-R regulations?
What does all your pedantic, prissy confrontationism have
to do with morse code testing?
>No smiley?
Go kiss my yes.
>And FCC has repeatedly said the remaining code test would NOT be eliminated as
>long as the treaty remains as-is. Is FCC "wrong"?
No. Tsk,tsk,tsk...the prissy little pedant tried to explain GOALS
before and cannot understand the GOALS of the FCC. The FCC
has a GOAL to ELIMINATE THE MORSE CODE TEST.
It can't because of something else. Does it WANT to eliminate the
code test? YES. Go kiss my yes.
>> Sorry, it does NOT "conform completely." We've been over that
>> in another set of messages.
>
>How?
Go google, Alexander Dumass.
>What do you suggest?
Reverend Jim should get a better quality toke.
Then go kiss my yes.
>WHY? Would that make any difference to anyone?
NO morse code test makes any difference to anyone already
tested for morse code and licensed in amateur radio.
Take your confrontational misdirection and kiss my yes.
>So? What difference would it make?
Absolutely nothing to you.
Dave Heil
> >> One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU if I can get away from paying
> >> for a download...that won't make their documents any less or more.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Your remark is irrelevant and confrontational.
Gee, Len, that holds for 95% of your postings here.
> >(expletive deleted)
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, another Priscilla Goodbody, prim, proper, and
> prissy pedantic victorian. Like an ex-marine corpseman in
> here.
>
> Oh, excuse me, you wouldn't know about such things as never
> having served your country...
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
> >> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Japan got away with a "violation" of S25.5, didn't
> >> it?
> >
> >No.
>
> Poor baby...Reverend Jim thinks he is one of the Supremes.
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
> Go kiss my yes.
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
> Miccolis is NOT on some Supreme Court of the ITU or the USA
> despite trying to act like a member of same. Your black robes
> are invisible. [the little barrister wig IS helpful...]
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
>
> Who cares? You weren't alive yet at that time. I was busy
> doing military communications for Far East Command Hq.
> That's professional radio work. My battalion got two Presidential
> Unit Citations for signal work while I was assigned to it.
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
> Go google, Alexander Dumass.
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
> >What do you suggest?
>
> Reverend Jim should get a better quality toke.
>
> Then go kiss my yes.
N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:
No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."
You're a small, rude man, Leonard.
Dave K8MN
Len Over 21
writes:
[first one from same message...]
Len Over 21
[sixth one from same message...]
Len Over 21
[third one from same message...]
Len Over 21
[fifth one from same message...]
Len Over 21
[second one from same message...]
Len Over 21
[fourth one from same message...]
Len Over 21
[seventh one from same message...!]
Floyd Davidson
Well, I notice you've gotten rid of the "excessive emoticons".
Good thing, that could do a lot of damage to the world. ;-)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
N2EY
(Len Over 21) writes:
>In article <20030310142733...@mb-fy.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
>writes:
>
>>We're at the 'Len Over 21 made an error and won't admit it' level.
>
> Sorry, bubeleh, Leonard H. Anderson (screen name of LenOver21)
You signed it "Len Over 21".
> made a statement about RECOMMENDATION versus Regulation
> before and still holds to that.
IOW, you persist in clinging to your error even after it has been pointed out
by others.
>
> Hello?
Goodbye.
> I keep saying RECOMMENDATION because that is all
> what the ITU-R "Radio Regulations" are
You're mistaken. They're regulations. There are IYU-R Recommendations, but the
code test is a regulation.
And that's a plain, simple fact. Live with it.
> ...a common-agreement,
> honored set of standards. Not binding in law as we citizens of a
> country are bound...there is no enforcement arm of the ITU...just
> agreements.
So? S25.5 is a regulation, not a law. Guess what - FCC has incorporated those
regulations (including S25.5) into its rules. And those rules are binding. Live
with it.
>
>>> One, I'm NOT buying anything from ITU if I can get away from paying
>>> for a download...that won't make their documents any less or more.
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>
> Your remark is irrelevant and confrontational.
>
So?
>>> Second, I call them RECOMMENDATIONS because that's what
>>> ITU-R calls them.
>>
>>No, ITU-R calls them 'regulations'.
>
> They are RECOMMENDATIONS until voted during a WRC. After
> that they are "Radio Regulations."
Here's your pepper pot. Have fun.
> Those "regulations" are still
> nothing more than RECOMMENDATIONS.
Nope.
> There is no crime
> committed if a country goes against those "regulations" because
> those RECOMMENDATIONS (called "regulations") are not law
> of any country.
You're simply mistaken, Len.
>
>>> Third, there are no, repeat NO International Radio
>>> Police to enforce "regulations."
>>
>>So?
>
>>Is a regulation not a regulation if there are no 'police' around?
>
> The ITU-R "regulations" are NOT law.
You're avoiding the question. Typical.
>>> Tsk, tsk, tsk. Japan got away with a "violation" of S25.5, didn't
>>> it?
>>
>>No.
>
> Poor baby...Reverend Jim thinks he is one of the Supremes.
No. I don't. You seem to - but you're not even a lawyer.
>
> There is NO "violation" of a non-law.
Nonsense.
> If Japan could do what it did,
> so can the United States or any other member nation of the ITU.
Maybe. Japan is an island nation, and its closest neigbors have few if any
hams. The USA and European countries aren't like that.
Perhaps the USA could do what Japan did - have an HF ham license that allows
QRP on a few bands. Would that satisfy you, Len?
>>Do you think the USA should adopt Japan's type of no-code-test HF amateur
>>license?
>
> Reverend Jim, I think you should quit snorting the cheap stuff
> and not become such confrontational pedant with these
> subject misdirections.
Yes or no?
>
>>Phil Kane has told us here that ITU-R is a treaty and is ratified by the
>>Senate. IS Phil Kane mistaken about that?
>
> Phil Kane is an attorney but he is NOT a Judge of the ITU Court
> or even any Supreme Court.
Neither are you, Len.
>
> Membership in the United Nations by administrative and legislative
> processes signifies that the United States honors the UN bodies'
> purposes, goals, and member obligations. Has the Congress of
> the United States "ratifiied" anything specific about the Radio part
> of the International Telecommunications Union? I don't think so.
> Has Congress of the US specifically "ratified" obeyance of S25.5?
> No.
You're mistaken.
>
> Go kiss my yes.
>
Kiss it yourself. I wouldn't get near it.
>>>>> Japan has waived Recommendation S25.5 for a certain class of
>>>>> their amateur license which does have HF privileges.
>>
>>No, they did not.
>
> Yes they did.
No, they did not. Live with it.
>>Where there no-code-test Japanese hams back then? ;-)
>
> Doesn't the renowned amateur radio Historian KNOW?!?
Yes I do. You obviously don't.
>
> Who cares?
Can't answer the question, huh?
> You weren't alive yet at that time.
So?
>>And FCC has repeatedly said the remaining code test would NOT be eliminated
>as
>>long as the treaty remains as-is. Is FCC "wrong"?
>
> No.
Then what's your complaint?
Dwight Stewart
>
> Really kind of a strange bunch of rules the
> FCC has. They issue ham licenses with a term
> of 3652 or 3653 days, but the renewal window
> is only 90 days. That's....ummmm.....2.4%
Shame on you, Jim. If rounded off properly, it is a little closer to 2.5%
(2.46%). Don't expect to get away with sloppy math like that in this
newsgroup. ;)
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Len Over 21
writes:
>In article <20030311181045...@mb-mu.aol.com>, leno...@aol.com
>(Len Over 21) writes:
>
>>In article <20030310142733...@mb-fy.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com
>(N2EY)
>>writes:
>>
>>>We're at the 'Len Over 21 made an error and won't admit it' level.
>>
>> Sorry, bubeleh, Leonard H. Anderson (screen name of LenOver21)
>
>You signed it "Len Over 21".
Nope. It is NOT "signed." These messages don't allow handwriting.
You are seeing things again, Reverend Jim.
>> made a statement about RECOMMENDATION versus Regulation
>> before and still holds to that.
>
>IOW, you persist in clinging to your error even after it has been pointed out
>by others.
What "error" you pedant? I gave an OPINION.
You don't like certain opinions. Hand me your TS card and I
will punch it.
>> I keep saying RECOMMENDATION because that is all
>> what the ITU-R "Radio Regulations" are
>
>You're mistaken. They're regulations. There are IYU-R Recommendations, but
>the code test is a regulation.
YOU are mistaken...we aren't discussing the "IYR."
You must have BYOB to the party, Reverend Jim.
>And that's a plain, simple fact. Live with it.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...learn to LIVE with OPINIONS. :-)
>So? S25.5 is a regulation, not a law. Guess what - FCC has incorporated those
>regulations (including S25.5) into its rules. And those rules are binding.
>Live with it.
INCORRECT! If you are going to play-act the pedant all the
time, go thee to Part 97 and analyze to your little cold heart's
content.
FCC regulations (they are regulations, law, not "rules") bind
only RF radiation originating within boundaries of USA territory.
USA law applies to USA territory.
There are NO ITU "laws" binding. If you violate ITU "regulations"
there will be no ITU marshals to come knocking on your door,
there will be only USA marshals.
>> Your remark is irrelevant and confrontational.
>>
>So?
So...little prissy pedant, remember you are not a god of radio
by virtue of morsemanship and aren't always correct in every-
thing you write in here.
You appear to want everything EXACT down to the smallest
detail, then you go and make all those ERRORS so far in this
one posting. You can't have it both ways.
>> There is no crime
>> committed if a country goes against those "regulations" because
>> those RECOMMENDATIONS (called "regulations") are not law
>> of any country.
>
>You're simply mistaken, Len.
Just send the ITU Police to my door with a World Court Warrant.
INTERPOL can come along, too, for funsies.
My "crime" appears to be ruffling of your pristine feathers even
though you knew your job was dangerous when you took it...
>> The ITU-R "regulations" are NOT law.
>
>You're avoiding the question. Typical.
No, superchicken, nothing was "avoided." My OPINION was
explained to you and you could not see it, accept it, or abide
with anything different from your glorious self-defined self-
righteousness.
>> Poor baby...Reverend Jim thinks he is one of the Supremes.
>
>No. I don't. You seem to - but you're not even a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer but I seem to be playing a construction worker
in here, chipping away at the concrete blockheadedness of
prissy pedanticsm you've molded yourself into. Too many
rocks in that morseman's concrete, doesn't have enough
strength to support magnificent morsemanship medallions.
>> There is NO "violation" of a non-law.
>
>Nonsense.
When I am on USA soil, only USA laws apply to me. Since
you recognize only this concept of "international law," I'll put
you down as NOT a USA citizen...an ALIEN.
The question now is, were you carded or were you saucered?
>> If Japan could do what it did,
>> so can the United States or any other member nation of the ITU.
>
>Maybe. Japan is an island nation, and its closest neigbors have few if any
>hams. The USA and European countries aren't like that.
Poor baby...a demonstrated anglophile and another European-
oriented easterner, all wrapped up in some weird territorial
superiority concept of Yurp Rulz!
Where is it written in any UNITED NATIONS bylaws about those
"exceptions due to isolation of any nation?" The International
Telecommunications Union is a UN body. Live with it.
>Perhaps the USA could do what Japan did - have an HF ham license that allows
>QRP on a few bands. Would that satisfy you, Len?
My only "satisfaction" would come from the destruction of those
clay pedestals you mighty macho amateur morsemen stuck
together out of ancient, crumbly play-doh.
Now don't you go crying in the corner about somebody making
fun of your opinions. Grow up and face reality, don't face New
England for kneeling at regular devotions on an official league
prayer rug. Don't trot out any territorial superiority bullshit about
"European centrism." I'm closer to Europe than most in ancestry
in here but am grown up enough to live in the entire world, not in
some yurp fantasyland of olde tymes. One planet, so far alone
in the universe.
Grow up and face the fact that YOU and YOUR OPINIONS aren't
"law" and that you are NOT a supreme god in amateur radio
where morsemanship is the epitome of amateurism. The rest of
the radio world has given up on morse and its "champions" are
now predominantly middle-aged white males who think they are
some kind of chieftans...while they vainly put off the inevitability
of newcomers with new ideas, new concepts not accepting the
ways of the Ancient Radiotelegraphy Service.
>> Go kiss my yes.
>>
>Kiss it yourself. I wouldn't get near it.
Poor baby...you only take "no" for an answer?
>Then what's your complaint?
You.