FISTS Petitions the FCC

[kn6z]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n8xd @ Sep. 10 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few months ago I was a VE at a testing session. #A teenage girl walked in, took the General, Extra and 5 WPM test. #She passed all the tests, and got a perfect score on the Morse code. #Don't try to tell me that you cant keep up with a teenage girl.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hmm. Depends on the teenage girl. I teach physics to a few girlie girls who could run circles around, and no doubt render impotent, 3/4 of the brilliant posters on this site.

[AE6IP]

While I, as a VE, agree that the NCVEC burden argument is silly, I wonder when I see comments like "reduced pay for reduced work."

Nobody pays VEs. Everything we do is voluntary.

In the VE group I belong to, the fees collected, such as they are, pay for all those test answer sheets, and for the envelopes that are used to express the results back to the ARRL, and for the pencils we hand out to test takers, and for the pens we use for scoring the tests. Fortunately, the space we test in is donated.

In our case, twice a month, five to twelve (or more, I've never counted all of us,) VEs spend four hours giving tests to all comers -- and sometimes at other special sessions as well.

[N5GLR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Sep. 10 2003,11:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N5GLR,

I assure you that any misrepresentation of the FISTS petition was wholly unitentional on my part. #If it was interpreted as a misrepresentation on your or anyoneelse's part for that I apologize and take full responsiblity for any misunderstanding on my part.

I also take it that your implaction that I would knowing lie was a misrepresentation on your part ... is this the case or am I mistaken?

As for not taking the bait, why not?

Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
AA1MN -
If you are sincere about you apology, then please admit where you misunderstood or misrepresented the facts. #If you've read the petition, you know exactly what it says and how you distorted the facts. #
You can refresh your memory by reading my post that challenges your statement. #The petition is also readily available for you to read ... if you wish.

In the future, try to use logic and fact to refute logic and fact. #If you have none, then don't challenge them. #Your are entitled to express your opinion but, not at the expense of the TRUTH. #Expressing your opinion means expressing your like or dislike, NOT twisting the facts to suit your agenda. #

Taking the bait:
Your tactics are transparent and typical. #Your tactic has been exposed and you are trying to change the subject (another worn out left-wing tactic). #

Distorting the facts to suit one's agenda is a typical left-wing (i.e. liberal) tactic. #e.g. #If the facts don't suit the agenda, then change or distort them. #I encourage everyone to READ THE PETITION before attacking it. #Facts and logic can be discussed. #Those who lie and distort the facts will simply change their lies and distortions to suit their agenda.


N5GLR

[n0vfp]

The Code should die. All that's to say. CW is old, serves no purpose than to keep us good folk off of HF.

Lloyd

[aa1mn]

N5GLR,

The views expressed on the topic at hand have been placed upon a reading of the FISTS petition.

Why is it, then, that you feel so vulnerable and threatened by my expressed views that you feel compeled to responded with nothing more than slurs and insults?

You have claimed that I have used obscenties on this thread yet why have you been unable to specify what they are? Further, do you really think that vulgarities would not be edited by the moderator/owner of this board in rather short order?

A "liar" and "distorter of facts" you have placed against my character yet why have you not shown the public examples of how this was done? Why have the accusations again not been backed by you with concrete examples?

While I endeavor not to judge a group of people by one sole person I cannot but help to ask if you, Garry, are the best representation that FISTS has to offer.

Will you be able to put my mind to rest on this, N5GLR, or are more slanders and slurs indeed the best that you can offer us?

Chuck, AA1MN

[N5GLR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Sep. 11 2003,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N5GLR,

The views expressed on the topic at hand have been placed upon a reading of the #FISTS petition.

Why is it, then, that you feel so vulnerable and threatened by my expressed views that you feel compeled to responded with nothing more than slurs and insults?

You have claimed that I have used obscenties on this thread yet why have you been unable to specify what they are? #Further, do you really think that vulgarities would not be edited by the moderator/owner of this board in rather short order?

A "liar" and "distorter of facts" you have placed against my character yet why have you not shown the public examples of how this was done? #Why have the accusations again not been backed by you with concrete examples?

While I endeavor not to judge a group of people by one sole person I cannot but help to ask if you, Garry, are the best representation that FISTS has to offer.

Will you be able to put my mind to rest on this, N5GLR, or are more slanders and slurs indeed the best that you can offer us?

Chuck, AA1MN

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
AA1MN -
There you go again, trying to fog the issue with a personal challenge. #Stick to the topic, I'm not taking the bait. #

I ask you again ... if your reading and comprehension skills are as good as you say and you fully understood what you read, then did you deliberately distort the facts? #Yes or No? #Please tell us? #Did you mis-read the petition or did you distort the facts to fit your agenda?

By the way ... Your attempt to portray yourself as a "victim" is another left-wing tactic that won't work. #The evidence to the contrary is here for everyone to see. #You haven't been wounded; you've been caught in a dilemma of your own making. #Now, be man enough to admit your mistake and move on.

N5GLR

[aa1mn]

Garry,

You have been given the consideration of having been given an answer. The petition HAS been read and understood on my part as stated in the reply previous to this. Did you not understand this?

Why do you not return the consideration with responses to questions that have been posed to you?

Are you only articulate enough to re-used tired lines such as "I will not take the bait"?

Garry, isn't it time that you cut the apron strings and provide us with answers of your own or are you incapable of doing even this simple task?

Can you, please, take a moment and reread the questions posted to you in my prior post and kindly respond with something other than put-downs and insults?

Chuck, AA1MN

[N8UZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Sep. 07 2003,17:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's keep the code bands. #They should however be cut down to about 1/4 the size they are now. #Hope it happens soon.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This would cause real problems as there isn't enough allocation right now for the narrow modes. Afterall the code bands (except for those at 6m and 2m) also include all the digital modes. At night, 40 meters often gets crowded.

[nessman]

Imagine that, a CW amateur radio organization against dropping the CW requirement.

Come on guys - do you honestly think that in the event of an emergency that the government will call upon you to send CW traffic?

During the blackout in the northeast last month millions of phone calls (landline and cellular), police/fire/ems transmissions, e-mails, instant messages and (gasp) voice amateur communications were still able to get through despite a widespread power outage.

I defy anyone here to show me where CW saved a life in recent history.

QUOTE: nessman
I defy anyone here to show me where CW saved a life in recent history.


We need not justify to you or anyone else on this forum whether CW saved a life, or if it was used in an emergency, or whether it's a filter, or anything else about CW. The simple fact is, many of us want to keep the Morse testing requirement and the CW bands in tact. That's it, no explanations needed or required.

In turn, I don't need or want any explanations or justification from anyone why they think the CW testing requirement should be eliminated. It just doesn't matter why. We want to keep it, you do not. Simple as that.....

73 NJ1K

[aa1mn]

With all due respect, NJ1K, there are also many of us who DO NOT want to keep morse testing.

Is there any more of a need for any explations on our part than there is on yours?

It's only a matter of time before the CW testing requirement is done away with here in the United States why can't those who enjoy code accept it with grace and elan, or are those like yourself who are so selfish about it finally going to tear up your licenses and dissappear from the bands and leave the rest of us in peace?

Don't mean to sound accusatory, NJ1K, just trying to point out that not everyone shares the same position on this, or any other issue, in life.

It would be nice to show a little respect for those those of us who don't share the same enthusiam for CW that many others do.

Thanks,

Chuck, AA1MN

[K3SUE]

I support the FISTS group to keep the code in the testing.

[K6UEY]

CHUCK AA1MN,
How difficult is it to respect those who come along with the idea of ploughing up the field and planting trees when the tradition is to keep a level playing field that all can enjoy.If you want a field of trees go find your own field and plough hell out of it,we like our field level with lots of green grass.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

As I stated in my post Mr. aa1mn, and I quote:

"In turn, I don't need or want any explanations or justification from anyone why they think the CW testing requirement should be eliminated. It just doesn't matter why. We want to keep it, you do not. Simple as that....."

Simple.... Need I say more??? It works both ways.....

dah dit dah
de NJ1K

[aa1mn]

Fair enough, NJ1K.

It seems that I did not interpet your post as fully as I should have and for that the fault is mine. Looks like there is a sense that things work both ways on your part and for that I commend you.

And least I forget, K6UEY I can understand the sense of frustration you must feel over this issue but please keep in mind that amateur radio attracts a wide range of people with interests in this hobby-service that won't always be the interests that you or I have in it. Like it or not, ham radio is an ever changing thing. Though the code requirement will eventually disappear in this country it does not mean that CW itself is going to go away -- in fact, I'd dare say that by discarding the morse requirement will create a situation where those who are dedicated to code will form and even tighter alliance amongst themselves, and this will include amateurs who are not even licensed yet.

Still think your field is getting ploughed over, K6UEY? Call me an optimist but I'd dare say quite the opposite. If you're a CW enthusiast (which, as you can probably quess that I, myself am not) stick with your faith and I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised to find a lot of old -- and new -- coders making your acquaintnce in the years to come http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

Chuck, AA1MN

[KL7FZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0vfp @ Sep. 11 2003,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Code should die. # All that's to say. #CW is old, serves no purpose than to keep us good folk off of HF. #

Lloyd[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What? You mean all them good folk who refuse to learn? Who can't learn? Why do we need or want anyone on HF like that? If you are so closed minded about the code then you will most likely be closed minded about other #radio and technology also. And if your mics breaks during an emergency - please go for coffee. You won't be any good on the radio for anything else. Yep. It might be keeping some people off #HF. Thank goodness for that.

I like the way you think KL7FZ!!!!

Go get 'em!!!!!

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ Sep. 14 2003,04:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0vfp @ Sep. 11 2003,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Code should die. # All that's to say. #CW is old, serves no purpose than to keep us good folk off of HF. #

Lloyd[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What? You mean all them good folk who refuse to learn? Who can't learn? Why do we need or want anyone on HF like that? If you are so closed minded about the code then you will most likely be closed minded about other #radio and technology also. And if your mics breaks during an emergency - please go for coffee. You won't be any good on the radio for anything else. Yep. It might be keeping some people off #HF. Thank goodness for that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If my mic breaks during an emergency, I'd just use another one.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Sep. 13 2003,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CHUCK AA1MN,
How difficult is it to respect those who come along with the idea of ploughing up the field and planting trees when the tradition is to keep a level playing field that all can enjoy.If you want a field of trees go find your own field and plough hell out of it,we like our field level with lots of green grass.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
d00d, i got some bad news for you. it ain't your field. spectrum belongs to the public, and is managed by the fcc. if the public can convince the fcc to change the way it is used, than it will change.

[aa1mn]

Rigt on target, AE6IP, right on target.

And a changing it will be doing. Bye bye CW, bye bye.

Chuck, AA1MN

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Sep. 13 2003,08:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We need not justify to you or anyone else on this forum whether CW saved a life, or if it was used in an emergency, or whether it's a filter, or anything else about CW. #The simple fact is, many of us want to keep the Morse testing requirement and the CW bands in tact. #That's it, no explanations needed or required.

In turn, I don't need or want any explanations or justification from anyone why they think the CW testing requirement should be eliminated. #It just doesn't matter why. #We want to keep it, you do not. #Simple as that.....

73 NJ1K[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's true, you don't need to justify your opinion to us here in the forum, but it DOES have to be justified to the FCC if you want them to decide in favor of keeping the code testing requirements. #The emergency argument is really the only solid ground pro-code-testing folks have, so it behooves you to be clear in your justification.

Likewise, clear justifications for removing the code testing should be presented to the FCC for the same reason. #So far, from the petitions I've read, including this one, those in favor of removing the code testing requirement have presented clearer justification. #The FCC alone will have to make the call based on their existing views and any additional views presented by the ham community, so the clearer the better. #

That is how our opinions translate into real decision-making. #Covering your ears and closing your mind to opposing views won't get you anywhere; you have to address them if you want your purpose to be maintained.

Simple as that.....

W2DUG,

So you want me to just spit out all my pro-code ammunition (assuming I have any) here on QRZ?? I wasn't born yesterday... Whatever it is I may have, I own and it is not up for discussion here...

You are correct that the FCC will make any and all decisions regarding morse testing and all that goes with any changes in the license structure....

What is amazing to me is the number of people on this forum who act as though they ARE the authorities and demand "facts, hard data, statistics, etc." from those who only express their opinions.... It is really difficult to express any point of view here without "The Big Kahuna" (and you know who you are) jumping in and very rudely telling every poster he is wrong about everything....

Seems to me that forums like this one are meant to express OPINIONS...

But back to the topic at hand, no one owes anyone, either here in this forum or even the FCC, data, hard facts, statistics etc.... The FCC is not demanding data & statistics from anyone here that I have heard of... They will assemble their own statistics and hard data if they elect to...

As far as I am concerned, if someone comments to the FCC a simple "I wish to have the morse testing & CW bands left in tact." one liner kind of thing, I believe that the FCC will consider this type of comment along with every other type of comment.... If they don't, so what?? But just because someone sends a comment in to the FCC that doesn't meet your approval, or "The Big Kahuna's" approval, doesn't mean it is not valid; It's still a comment.... I believe ALL comments will be considerd...

Have a happy day now....

73 NJ1K

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Sep. 15 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you want me to just spit out all my pro-code ammunition (assuming I have any) here on QRZ?? #I wasn't born yesterday... Whatever it is I may have, I own and it is not up for discussion here...
73 NJ1K[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I certainly don't want you to, but the point I was trying to make was that presenting well-thought-out, cohesive and well-represented views would serve better toward achieving your goal, especially because it may get more people into your camp, and could result in a stronger voice, especially if those people turn around and feed their views to the FCC.

This forum can achieve more than simply exchanging opinions...for example, it has recently served as a starting point for comments to the FCC on the BPL issue for many hams. #It has also promulgated much information on a number of technical and regulatory issues to the ham community at large.

On the other hand, this forum frequently serves as a sounding board for narrow-minded illiterates and trolls, too, so you may have a point, NJ1K. #Nevermind.

Considering that regulatory changes are being requested by regular citizens and were not initiated from within the government with mandates, this is how I project the FCC wil handle comments. While it is true that well written and planned petitions may provide more information and yes, facts, figures, and hard data, I believe the FCC is obligated to read and consider all comments and opinions submitted to them. Further, while facts, figures, and hard data may hold more logic than individual opinions or simple wishes, I believe numbers (for or against) will prevail. As an example: Suppose every licensed ham wanted the code testing to remain and each one of a half-million or so commented with a one liner simply stating they would prefer it to stay while on the other side of the fence only one NON-licensed person subbmitted a well written and thought out plan with tons of facts and hard data. Which way do you think the FCC will sway?? I believe they would respond with "no change" simply because the numbers of LICENSED hams submitting their opinions... Of course this scenario would never exist, but the point is the numbers of licensed people count more because they have been through the license process and are satisfied with it. They only need to submit yeah or nay comments.

Likewise, for the current real world situation, I believe (opinion) that the FCC will see less merit in petitions submitted by individuals (expecially non-licensed ones) or by technicians who have not passed a code test than they would petitions submitted by extra class licensees or large organizations. I also believe they will see more merit in huge numbers of general, advanced, and extra class licensees whether there is hard data or not... I believe (opinion again) that they will put more value in the "opinions" of those who have priveleges to use the spectrum...

Again, this is my opinion... I have many reasons to believe what I do and do not need hard data or facts etc... If someone wants to submit 100 pages or so to the FCC documenting this, that or some other thing, that's fine... Anyone is allowed to do that...If they think it will have more merit with the FCC, cool... But again, my belief is that every comment will be read and considered, maybe not equally, but considered nonetheless and in the end I think the numbers will be more important than facts and data...

Again, just my opinion....

Happy Day NJ1K

[nessman]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Sep. 13 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">QUOTE: # nessman
I defy anyone here to show me where CW saved a life in recent history.


We need not justify to you or anyone else on this forum whether CW saved a life, or if it was used in an emergency, or whether it's a filter, or anything else about CW. #The simple fact is, many of us want to keep the Morse testing requirement and the CW bands in tact. #That's it, no explanations needed or required.

In turn, I don't need or want any explanations or justification from anyone why they think the CW testing requirement should be eliminated. #It just doesn't matter why. #We want to keep it, you do not. #Simple as that.....

73 NJ1K[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The simple fact is, many of us want to keep the Morse testing requirement and the CW bands in tact. That's it, no explanations needed or required.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes - you do need to explain your platform. The rest of the civilized world is dropping the CW requirements but American hams are going to be embroiled in a battle over something the FCC should have done away with years ago.

Face it - CW is dead. Outside of ham radio, it no longer exists, nor has it been used commercially in decades.

Instead, a group of CW enthusiasts insist on holding onto a piece of technology that was rendered obsolete by 1920 while the hobby continues to be eroded by the internet and other methods of communications.

Removing CW will give ham radio a much needed boost.

You guys want to sit there and complain about BPL. Well - the less hams on HF, the less people to protest BPL and what it will do to the HF bands. Remove CW and you'll have more voices to fight BPL.

[aa1mn]

Fair enough, NJ1K.

I am a licensed Extra Class amateur radio operator who was required to pass the 5, 13, and 20 WPM requirement.

Since it is your opinion the FCC will put more stock in my say because of this I am going to contact them to let them know the code requirement should be dropped for United States amateurs.

Thanks for putting the idea in my head.

Chuck, AA1MN

Don't be silly aa1mn... I didn't put anything in your head... And yes, I do think that the FCC will place more stock in your comments than in some non-licensed CB type or any of the technicians... Maybe we will end up with no-code licensing, maybe not... Who really is to know??

[N0TTW]

To all the folks on this and other threads dealing with the code,

My wife has been reading some of these posts and other threads on the code/no-code debates. She's a non-technical person by nature. She enjoys watching what I do when I make a contact on HF, either by voice, digital or CW. Especially when they’re overseas. These code/no-code debates have had her wondering if it's as hard as the no-coders have said. So she asked me to write this and post this on several threads.

She feels, after watching me do CW and hearing how fast 5 WPM sounds, that she can pass the 5 WPM..... By Oct 25th, 2003 (next testing session). That's only a little more than a month away. Too top it off, she wants to get her General as well. She also wants to challenge those, who don't have the code, to see if you can beat her before she passes.

She sounds very determine, but she always loves a challenge.

By the way, let me thank those who debated this issue. It did something I couldn't do, convince my wife to become a Amateur Radio Operator. It kinda shocked me that she ask me to teach her the code and the theory. And I will!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I plan to start a website here soon to show how she is progressing. I'll post the link on my profile here on QRZ. The link will be up in a week for those who are interested.

I think her challenge is a good challenge to those who are against the code. If she can pass it, there will be no excuse for those who say they can't. And those are the ones who are against it the most.

Chris N0TTW

[N0TTW]

AE6IP has little to say as he doesn't have the experience to form an oppinion on Amateur Radio.

He's one of those "good ol' boys" that wants his friends become hams so he can have a lifelink of some type.

Chris N0TTW

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 18 2003,12:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP has little to say as he doesn't have the experience to form an oppinion on Amateur Radio.

He's one of those "good ol' boys" that wants his friends become hams so he can have a lifelink of some type.

Chris N0TTW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, yes, the last resort of those who won't intelligently discuss a point: ad hominem.

FWIW, it only took me three weeks to learn code well enough to pass element 1; and my wife about the same. #What's up with that slacker wife of yours? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

(For the humor impared: that was a joke. See the smiley face?)

[N0TTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 18 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, yes, the last resort of those who won't intelligently discuss a point: ad hominem. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You know, I took Latin in college (and was bad at it), so I do know what ad hominem means. Sometimes I wish I didn't, so I could be ignorentia with latin.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FWIW, it only took me three weeks to learn code well enough to pass element 1; and my wife about the same. #What's up with that slacker wife of yours?

(For the humor impared: that was a joke. See the smiley face?) [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I did see the humor. Must be the code.

Chris N0TTW

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 18 2003,22:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 18 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, yes, the last resort of those who won't intelligently discuss a point: ad hominem. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You know, I took Latin in college (and was bad at it), so I do know what ad hominem means. Sometimes I wish I didn't, so I could be ignorentia with latin.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FWIW, it only took me three weeks to learn code well enough to pass element 1; and my wife about the same. #What's up with that slacker wife of yours?

(For the humor impared: that was a joke. See the smiley face?) [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I did see the humor. Must be the code.

Chris N0TTW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
pax vobiscum.

[kg4zuf]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nessman @ Sep. 15 2003,12:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Sep. 13 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">QUOTE: # nessman
I defy anyone here to show me where CW saved a life in recent history.


We need not justify to you or anyone else on this forum whether CW saved a life, or if it was used in an emergency, or whether it's a filter, or anything else about CW. #The simple fact is, many of us want to keep the Morse testing requirement and the CW bands in tact. #That's it, no explanations needed or required.

In turn, I don't need or want any explanations or justification from anyone why they think the CW testing requirement should be eliminated. #It just doesn't matter why. #We want to keep it, you do not. #Simple as that.....

73 NJ1K[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The simple fact is, many of us want to keep the Morse testing requirement and the CW bands in tact. #That's it, no explanations needed or required.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes - you do need to explain your platform. #The rest of the civilized world is dropping the CW requirements but American hams are going to be embroiled in a battle over something the FCC should have done away with years ago. #

Face it - CW is dead. #Outside of ham radio, it no longer exists, nor has it been used commercially in decades. #

Instead, a group of CW enthusiasts insist on holding onto a piece of technology that was rendered obsolete by 1920 while the hobby continues to be eroded by the internet and other methods of communications. #

Removing CW will give ham radio a much needed boost.

You guys want to sit there and complain about BPL. #Well - the less hams on HF, the less people to protest BPL and what it will do to the HF bands. #Remove CW and you'll have more voices to fight BPL.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Face it - CW is dead. Outside of ham radio, it no longer exists, nor has it been used commercially in decades.

Sorry but Cw is not dead but is alive. Plus Ham Radio is a HOBBY it is optional you dont have to do it it is your choice. And, i have question since collecting stamps is a hobby do you use them commercially? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N0ZB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Sep. 02 2003,05:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The petition falsely states that Fists is "the fastest-growing amateur radio organization in the United States."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I just joined!