ARRL Proposal to Give Technicians More Operating Privileges

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by NW7US, Apr 10, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
  1. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    No, I gave you very specific search criteria that would give you posts by me that were on-topic, with references to specific Commission documents. That you haven't used them just reinforces that you are just talking, and not doing any research.
    Mostly. :)
    Honestly, I kind of enjoy watching people argue nonsense based on their deliberate ignorant of the plain-language facts. It's a side-hobby, really. ;)
     
  2. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    That sword cuts both ways, you know that don't you? I laid out my "homework" on why the FCC has little concern for maintaining any semblance of a CW knowledge requirement and since you disagree then therefore you have not done your homework. If you don't agree with me then you do so out of ignorance.
     
  3. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    ...a subject that is irrelevant to the proposal being discussed.
    LOL! :D
     
  4. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I missed these points before...

    So the FCC should... excuse me, will, keep these HF Technician bands as CW only precisely because it encourages digital mode use? Wow, that's some tortured and fevered logic. Speaking of fevered logic, are you feeling okay?

    I see, you don't actually believe that the FCC will keep the status quo, you just want to argue for the sake of argument. Well played.
     
  5. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Perhaps to you. It made perfect sense to FCC when they explained that -- in detail -- in the passages I cited from their orders. They want people to have a reason to upgrade, and upgrading to obtain the authority to use new modes is part of what they see as significant incentive. They mentioned that very specifically.

    If you disagree, that's fine, but that puts you at odds with their stated reasoning.
     
  6. KJ4VTH

    KJ4VTH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Then we are finally done here? No, I bet not. :rolleyes:
     
    AC0GT likes this.
  7. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I thought we were done with this game? I see you don't believe the FCC will keep the status quo, why keep going with this?

    Also, you didn't cite anything, you quoted with giving only vague indications on the source. I'm thinking you made up half of what you claim the FCC wrote. The best lies are hidden between two truths. If they wrote what you claimed they did then you'd be able to do better than "Google it" on where I can find it in context.

    Nope, I'm not going down that rabbit hole again. Citations or it didn't happen.
     
  8. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    FCC 05-143 isn't enough citation for you? It's an unambiguous reference to the document. If you put it into Google, the first returned link is the correct one.
    I did. I gave you the FCC document number. Repeatedly. I gave it even more times in the links to other threads that I posted. Then I told you to specifically search for that term using my call, just so you would get the places that I used that citation. :rolleyes:
     
  9. KJ4VTH

    KJ4VTH Ham Member QRZ Page

    WG7X wins the bet. :cool:
     
    AC0GT likes this.
  10. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There's anything new in this thread??

    Oh right, you can't hear me. :D
     

Share This Page