In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
"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.
Note that Hans avoids my question.
I have to agree with Hans on this.
You're avoiding my question too, Carl. Why is that?
I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests
That's NOT what I've said at all! You're twisting my words into something
completely different.
I'm saying that the same arguments can be used - and will be used - by some
against both tests. The process is already started - see KL7CC's comments on
the recent petitions.
(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 ...)
So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the
amateur radio of the 21st century?
Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up?
Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...
I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about something.
Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's the
Maximum Leader.
btw, his outfit sent me another one of those renewal packets. This time they
want $6 to do what I can do myself with a few mouse clicks.
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.
If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas, why
are you so afraid?
You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal.
You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense.
You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas.
Only me. Interesting.
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"
Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove the
need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now? Why
can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue?
... 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.
How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service
doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators" mantra.
Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to build
a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise?
Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell -
Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there who
will *agree* with KL7CC.....
there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.
It's probably already too late.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|