In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:


Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?

Because there's no real harm to anyone...and if you want an
incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus
it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one
snapshot of time.

On the contrary, Bill, to olde-tyme hammes, the "unqualifications"
(not being licensed under old standards and practices) causes
irreconcileable psychological HARM to those olde-tymers.

They will LOSE some of their bragging rights and rank/status/
privilege that made them so arrogantly "superior." Ho hum.


That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain
licenses
on a certain date.

But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.

Agreed.

THAT is the critical difference.

And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not
as
a permanent change?

Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND
it then continues with the incentive system as before.

"Incentive?" Incentive towards bragging rights, I'm sure.

Such seems to be a very important part of today's amateur radio,
almost as much as morsemanship...

Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a
one
time thing.

Time and situations change and people change.

Mr. Expletive_deleted does NOT ALLOW anyone to change their
minds! Hiram forbid that anyone, ever changes their minds!


That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.

Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands
that loss. With this, no one losses anything.

...except psychological harm. :-)

Why, because no one losses any privileges.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

If maybe not, please point to what privileges will
be lost by which license holders.

The "loss" is very deep, very personal. Their world is collapsing
around them, the sky is falling, and all is lost.


No, it's not what I want.

But how do we argue against those who want it?

YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that.
I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens.

No change! No change! Hold back the dawn! :-)


So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old
license
class.

The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their
upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper
license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement:

Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be
General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra).

Everything to these olde-tymers is wrapped up in that pretty piece
of paper (suitable for framing). Change cannot happen until that
license certificate is officially modified by an official of the official
government. Officially.


I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is
claiming to know what FCC wants.

Take it as a best quess then.

Mr. Expletive_deleted has previously claimed "insider knowledge."

He KNOWS. Ho hum.

Ultimately the FCC will decide.

Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL?

Different subject for a different thread.

Normal misdirection by Mr. Expletive_deleted. :-)


I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too.

As is your right to do so.

Absolutely.


20,000 in the past 12 months.

We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at
the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one
month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations.

Morsemanship doesn't guarantee immortality?!?!?

Tsk, tsk, tsk!


Life's a

[expletive deleted]

and then we die.

Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test.

God grant us the wisdom to...
Accept the things we cannot change, change those
we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference.

Some cannot be changed, do not permit change that infringes
on their rank/status/privilege. Federals must support their
bragging rights no matter what. :-)


How do you know?

SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening
of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC
implements free upgrades on a certain date?

He WILL "see" such and be inventive in his rationalization of same!

Take that to the bank. :-)


It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the
qualifications,
both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And
that's
not a good thing.

And if that is your true meaning, why would you state
that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl."
Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same
written tests if he had to?

Finally you getting a glimpse of Mr. Expletive_deleted's motives. :-)

U.S. amateur radio has always been about morsemanship? To
some that is a Maxim.


I wonder what HK's written test requirements are.....

I don't really care.

He is worried. :-)

LHA / WMD