"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article .net,
"KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote



But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved

down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...



Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service" ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting
that one.

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

73,
Carl - wk3c