Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
Do you support those free upgrades or not?
I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.
Uh huh!
I'll ask:
Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?
If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.
Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.
Give me a break, Bill!
Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?
Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but
it's
still a reduction.
It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.
Are the people qualified?
And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.
If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because
no one losses any privileges.
Are they qualified?
A few things here.
IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.
If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.
Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. I
refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will
go up.
I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.
|