Thread
:
Why You Don't Like The ARRL
View Single Post
#
11
January 1st 04, 02:53 AM
Brian
Posts: n/a
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:
(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From:
(Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?
One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain.
It is a "TIRED" radio structure.
Not at all!
It's a "tried and true" license structure.
When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about
250,000
US hams. Today there are about 680,000.
But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not
grow the number.
Where did you get that idea?
Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the
number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full
amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the
number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the
quarter-million mark.
A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years
back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I
don't think Aaron posted it, though.
If you want Merit Badges, join the
BSA (or CAP).
License class is not a merit badge.
Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm
Extra!"
When have I done that?
Not necessarily you.
You wrote:
"Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm
Extra!""
Fourth word in that sentence is...
you
Can you say that others don't do it?
Fourth word in that sentence....
that
Besides, 20 wpm isn't that fast. I can do at least 35 wpm.
Do I detect a little swelling of your shirt?
Nope. Just fact.
Don't sweat it. That is called achievement. You have my blessing.
It seems to really bother you that others have learned radio operating
skills that you have not.
It bothers me that there is a barrier to entry into the ARS based upon
a psychomotor skill to emulate a modem.
There is no need to have class distinctions between
hams artificially created by the FCC.
License class is not about class distinctions.
Are you positively sure abaout that?
Yep.
I'm not.
I am.
You could be wrong.
Enough RRAPpers have abused their status to convince me
otherwise.
That's you. Others think differently.
Larry, Dick and Bruce do it regularly. Kelly and others on occasion.
It's about qualification for
privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the
Extra
is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges.
Is that like when the General licence holder had all priveleges?
1953 to 1968. Then FCC decided that it wasn't enough.
But didn't the FCC first decide that it was enough?
Nope.
Hmmm? Wonder who was writing the rules in 1953?
From the FCC's/FRC's origins in the early 1930s until 1951, there was
effectively a two-level system (Class A/B/C, but a C was just a B by
mail). Class A was required for full privileges, and it required an
advanced written test (with essay questions and diagrams) plus a year
as a Class B or C.
That's swell.
From 1951 to 1953, an Advanced or Extra was required for full
privileges.
Gee, Beav, I wonder what happened?
There's that sticky period from 1953 to 1968 that you're avoiding.
Maybe there was an executive order and the FCC really didn't decide
that General was enough.
From 1968 until the present, an Extra has been required for full
privileges.
Was the FCC back in charge then, or did the President intervene again?
So out of about 70 years of FRC/FCC regulation of amateur radio, the
period of "Generals get it all" was a bit less than 16 years. And even
then it was a three-level system (Novice, Tech, General-and-above).
That's significant.
Some would call
this era the golden years of amateur radio.
Which era?
The golden years.
I'd call the present era the golden years. We have all sorts of
wonderful equipment and modes never dreamed of before, at lower prices
(adjusted for inflation) than could have been imagined at any time in
the past. More hams, more DX, more opportunities.
Yep, code testing is almost history.
And when the Tech (General written w/o 13wpm Code) had VHF only.
This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur
radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.
Then tell Steve about self-training.
He knows. You don't.
Apparently he doesn't. Nor do you.
Sure I do. I never attended any amateur radio classes as a student.
Yet you saw it necessary to do so as an instructor.
Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.
Such as?
Cop McDonald - SSTV.
45+ years ago. I've read the original articles. That work is so old that 11
meters was a ham band.
So Cop didn't distinguish himself because he hasn't done anything
lately?
He did, both back then and more recently.
So you agree that an amateur can distinguish him or herself without
thumping on their license class merit badge?
Maybe the press that ran the original articles you read is now
defunct?
Nope. Still puts out a mag every month.
Cool. Then they're bucking the trend.
Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of
the
Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as
one
of "self-training".
I do.
Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF?
Oh, I have.
I don't think so.
Then you simply don't know.
Do you have an HF amateur radio station ready to go at your home now,
Brian?
Sure. Doesn't everyone?
What I haven't done is train myself on EVERY practical
antenna for HF, especially those antennas applicable to low visual
impact in a restricted neighborhood, and cannot (or rather shouldn't
be placed against) a house sheathed in aluminum siding. So I looked
outside my personal breadth of knowledge for something new, and ran
into you and Brian Kelly. What a pair.
You wanted to be spoon-fed antenna theory and practice instead of
self-training. I pointed you to several websites. It's clear you didn't even
look.
How so?
By your obvious ignorance of the resources available with a simple
google search.
Is google your only search engine?
Some would call that self-training, seeking information and knowledge
outside ones own experience.
Then why didn't you find the information on your own? It became clear to me
that you hadn't even tried googling. You wanted others to do the work for you,
then you'd insult those who tried to help you out.
Kelly was abusive.
So are you.
Learned behavior.
You get far more respect here than you give.
And you are the one who measures out the amount of respect a person
should receive? You are a God.
And because something worked in his backyard he
knew it would work in everyone elses back yard. Even when I put the
limitations up front.
You did not even try it, did you?
Send me your transceiver and I'll run a wire up against my aluminum
siding.
He is mentally deficient and emotionally
immature.
And yet you call others "abusive".
When they're abusive, I speak up. When they don't understand that my
backyard is not identical to their backyard, I say they are mentally
deficient. When the are outraged when my backyard is not identical to
their backyard, they are emotionally immature.
I hope you understand.
You've personally refused to answer any questions on some alleged DX
operations.
Most of your questions have been answered.
No, they haven't. You said they were "too hard".
I gave many of the details long before you, Dave, Steve, Kelly, Dick,
Steve, Phil, and Ed started slamming me.
You're not really
interested in what I have to say, only interested character
assassination.
I'm interested in the facts. You're not.
I'm not interested in the facts? I lived them.
Once you discredit me, you think you can discredit
what I say.
Your own words discredit you far better than I ever could.
And quite recently, you're words have gone a long way in discrediting
you.
I've built HF and VHF antennas,
some from a box, some from a reel of wire and bamboo poles. And I've
operated on HF from Nebraska, ROK, Guam, Illinois, Somalia, Florida,
and Ohio, in that order.
Who is puffing out his chest now?
Not based on license class. Remember, achievements, not FCC Merit
Badges.
So you don't think passing the license tests is an achievement.
Not worth thumping your chest again and again, and running others into
the ground.
Many snicker at working huge pileups with a mere Technician license
while operating SSB on the "kiddie band."
I have no idea what you mean by the "kiddie band".
Feigning ignorance again? We've been down this road before.
Maybe you've distinguished yourself professionally?
Some people think so. But I'm not going to say anything about that
because you'd call it puffery or some such.
As long as you don't claim "real military experience," like your good
buddy did.
How many JOTA stations have you hosted?
None. How many have you hosted?
Three.
That's good!
Thank you. I really enjoyed doing it. I hope to become a Radio Merit
Badge counselor in the Central Ohio area.
How many intro-license classes have you hosted?
A few. Code and theory. Plus upgrade study groups. Plus online help to many
amateurs.
I've seen your on-line help.
Do you subscribe to the reflectors where I give most of it?
your complaining about answering a few of my questions on rrap.
You and Kelly make a great tag-team.
He knows far more about practical HF antennas than I. I'm EE, he's ME,
practical amateur radio antennas are about 10% EE and 90% ME. And
that's probably exaggerating the EE part.
You did a good deed today. He probably hasn't had any kudos lately.
How many have you taught?
Two. Technician. It was tough answering a lot of the theory
questions. It would have been nice if more Extra's had been
interested enough to help out.
There you go, bashing by license class.
According to the great Incentive Licensing Theory, they were more
qualified to do so than me. Where were they?
Self-training, remember?
Yet you saw it necessary to teach some theory classes yourself.
What about that?
Certainly you've done something other than DX and belittle you fellow
hams.
I'm not a DXer.
You should.
Why?
You can actually earn waards based upon actual
achievements, not just FCC Merit Badges.
Don't need any "waards"
Whine not?
Where have I belittled any other hams?
Good grief!!! You just belittled my antenna knowledge again,
Where?
Above.
and you
tag-teamed with Kelly on it a little more than a year ago.
You label any disagreement as belittling and abuse, then.
When it becomes abusive, I do.
Not all hams will distinguish themselves - you certainly haven't. So
let them just be hams, like 99% of all the other Extra class
licensees.
And like you?
I've done nothing out of the ordinary. I don't claim to. I've had
lots of fun being just an ordinary ham.
Same here - so what's the problem.
You tell me.
I don't deserve ridicule because of my license class,
Neither do Extras.
Many of the ones here do. You've been stepping up to the plate
lately.
or because
someone else thinks that my fun could have been greater if my license
class had been higher.
Your choice.
My fun.
Note the following sentence:
You want one class of license, fine.
See what it says? I was writing about what *YOU* say you want.
I see you agreeing with the word, "fine."
Here's how to do it:
First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens.
Again, no.
Why does this keep disappearing out of the quotes?
I think you are being dishonest each time you snip something as
significant as the code exam.
Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues.
What? No learners permit?
Nope. You said you want one class of license, no class distinctions, no
merit
badges. A learner's permit would mean a two-tiered structure.
Nope.
Do you want one class of license or not? One class means one class.
Sure I do.
A person expresses and interest, get a learners permit and has
access to other amateurs for mentoring.
No license is needed for "access to other amateurs for mentoring". And
what happened to "self training"?
Sure it is.
Then becomes an amateur with
the "Amateur License." No renewals.
That's a two-class system. By definition.
Would those with "learner's permits" be allowed to be control
operators and have their own stations? If so, then it's a license, not
a learner's permit. If not, and they need a control op, there's no
need for it.
Sure they would, but for a temporary period of time. No "career"
learners permits.
You said one license. That means one class of license - no learner's permit.
Learners permit is fatally temporary.
How temporary? Could a person get another one after the first one runs
out?
Talk to Hans.
Does NOT create an underclass of Amateurs.
Two classes is two classes. Either you want one class or you don't.
One class.
Or were you lying about wanting one class of license?
Not lying.
Then why do you want two classes of license now?
Why do you want to keep taking the CW exam out of our exchange?
Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one
large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech
or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more.
Such as operating priveleges?
Exactly. If there's to be one license class, it would have to be for all
operating priviliges, so there's no need to test on where the old
subbands-by-license-class used to be. But that's about all that would be
removed.
OK so far.
Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the
combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become
hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges.
Just leave out "Class" and call it "Amateur License."
Whatever.
You wanted a one license ARS, didn't you?
Not me. You're the one that's been yammering on and on about "class
distinctions" and "underclass of amateurs" and "merit badges".
Remember these two sentences that I wrote at the beginning of the
discussion:
"You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:"
You agreed with one license class when you said, "fine," and then you
laid out your plan with, "Here's how to do it."
Your plan.
Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically
extended
to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No
renewals.
Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class"
test within the next 10 years or leave the air.
You could even ask to have the pools FOUO, and/or increase the size to
12,000 questions. Just make the subject matter relavent.
What subject matter in the combined question pool that was just described is
not relevant?
Example: How many minutes it takes to send a FAX image?
That's nonsense.
No, it's bad grammar. Good grammar would be "How many minutes does it
take to send a FAX image?"
You're so brilliant.
Why is it nonsense? Hams use FAX and similar modes. Shouldn't the test
cover something about those modes? Or should it only cover modes *you*
use?
How many minutes does it take to send to send a CW message?
How many minutes does it take to send a SSB message?
At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have
passed the same test to get it.
Why not?
Why not, Indeed?
Two reasons:
1) All newcomers would have to pass a written test about equivalent to the
Extra just to get on the air.
It was your suggestion.
No, it was my explanation of what your demand for a one-class system
would require.
You agreed with one license class when you said, "fine," and then you
laid out your plan with, "Here's how to do it."
Your plan.
I just went along with it.
You've been beating the drum for a one-class system for quite a while
but you're short on the details.
Now you say I'm asking for a two-class system. Which is it?
Why did you drop
the code discussion out of the equation?
Because you'd never agree to a code test.
And my opinion is will soon become a reality. Yet you cling to to the
past.
2) Existing hams would have to retest at that level or leave the air.
Basis and purpose is fufilled.
How many US hams do you think would be left in 10 years under such a system?
Only the ones who really worked hard.
Deal.
You run it up the flag
No. It's your idea.
No, its your idea.
I don't want it. I simply outlined how to do it.
Remember these two sentences that I wrote at the beginning of the
discussion:
"You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:"
You agreed with one license class when you said, "fine," and then you
laid out your plan with, "Here's how to do it."
Your plan.
You want it, you do the work. Self-training, remember? Learn how to write
and submit a proposal to the FCC and get an RM number assigned. Then see
what the amateur community thinks of your ideas in their comments.
I don't want such a system - I just described what would logically be the
structure of such a system. I did it to point out exactly what such a system
would require, and some of the foreseeable consequences.
Ah, you ran up a straw man that you really don't support.
Not at all.
I simply outlined how to do something so that all the ramifications
would be
clear.
You agreed with one license class when you said, "fine," and then you
laid out your plan with, "Here's how to do it."
Your plan.
You've been
doing a lot of that lately, i.e., no written exams.
It's called thinking before acting.
You just want to be absurd. You've succeeded.
Welp, I guess I'll never be able to take you at your word again.
Why? You're the one who has been pounding the drum for a one-class
license system, not me.
You agreed with one license class when you said, "fine," and then you
laid out your plan with, "Here's how to do it."
Your plan.
But you won't do the work to even figure out
the details, let alone write a proposal.
Slow down. Why must we rush through everything? Why can't we think
it through?
Now you're saying you want a two class system.
A one class system. A temporary, nonrenewable permit is not a career
license.
Here are those two sentences again:
"You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:"
You agreed with one license class when you said, "fine," and then you
laid out your plan with, "Here's how to do it."
Your plan.
and I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat
of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but
not mode.
No. You said one class of license. That means no learner's permits, no
easy-to-get licenses, just one class of license. Unless you support "dumbing
down", such a license would have to require roughly the equivalent written test knowledge as an Extra. Some regulations questions could be eliminated but that's all.
Or were you lying about wanting one class of license?
You certainly were.
No, I was not. Nowhere did I say I wanted one class of amateur
license.
But you did.
Remember these two sentences that you wrote at the beginning of the
discussion:
"You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:"
Your behavior makes it clear why people don't want to help you, Brian.
You never wanted to help me in the first place; neither with the
antenna information, nor with the one license proposal. Now you set
up a straw man, claim it is my proposal, keep clipping out dropping
the CW exam, throw "self-learning" in my face when you've participated
in classroom instruction... and on and on.
Your thin veneeer of civility has cracked and crumbled. You tried to
set me up in your carefully laid trap. Then you want to talk about my
behavior.
Sorry, Jim, but I'll never again refer to you as the "Rev. Jim," no
matter how many swear words you clip out of someone else's posts.
Reply With Quote
