Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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?

Why would they be "unqualified?"

Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam
which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific
class of license.

Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has
NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything
specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges.

The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular
band segments.

If the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, then there will be a "one-time"
waiver of certain tests to accomodate the upgrades

No kidding?

...which then means
that those new upgraded Extras or Generals do, indeed,
constitute fully qualified hams for those license
classes.

Yeah, I know that. I'm trying to keep that part of the ARRL proposal
from taking place.

Let's be serious here!

It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our
lanyards.

Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose
it.

I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your
support for it, though I believe such support is unwise.

Your free to hold whatever opinion you wish.

You're correct.

Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours.

Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while
you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do
you?

Whatever floats your boat.

Non-response noted.

If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...

That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone
giving an opinion contrary to yours".

Your point?

....went right over your head.

That is my opinion of how I read your comments...which
is certainly my right.

I'll hold in reserve my opinion of how you read my comments.

...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.

We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.

Somehow I suspect the ARRL BOD does also...but I suspect it
isn't in sync with what you think.

That should have become obvious to you a little earlier.

In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no
bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.

Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's
a--well, you know the drill.

Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement.

If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of
earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact
responses.

Whatever floats your boat.

Non-response noted.

I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF.
I'm
betting that the answer is "none".

Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what
makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners?

The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being
beginners.

Nor did I suggest that "all" Techs are beginners....

Did you think I wrote anything about such a thing?

but it is still a fact that all technicians, both beginners and "old hands"
are allowed 1500 watts.

Yep. No one seems to have had a problem with that in the past.
Beginners aren't likely to run 1500 watts on 2m or 6m and "old hands"
are more likely to know what they're doing.

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?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class
license. No ifs, ands or buts.

Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would
be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test.

That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.

Believe what you wish. I support the "one-time" upgrades.
If that makes you think I support permanent "dumbing down"
then you have a lapse of logic somewhere.

On the contrary. If such material is not needed by thousands and
thousands on a one-time basis, why would it need to be tested at all,
ever?

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?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the
General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is
something you stated that you'd never support.

If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition.

I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you
say you support it.

Fair enough.

In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented
as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements
for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and
understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there
will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra
and General.

Clear enough for you?

I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to
justify it as being necessary any time.

Yawn. That's for the FCC to decide and, I suspect the FCC
can live with a one-time upgrade without believeing it
jeopardizes all future requirements.

Burp. I suspect that not many FCC staffers care one way or the other.
The FCC has long abdicated its responsibilities in enforcement, planning
and testing.

Governments often waive
criminal and monetary fines by waiving them and offering
special "tax amnesty" periods. After the "amnesty period" is over,
if you are found guilty of eevading the taxes, you think the
courts accept an argument that if the fines were waived once
they should be permanently waived?

A freebie amateur radio licensing waiver is not a criminal matter nor is
it a fine. What is under discussion is amateur radio licensing and
whether the testing for certain classes of license are truly necessary
if they can be waived for thousands and thousands of people.

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?

Broken record here it seems.

The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been
forthcoming.

The question keeps coming up because some people can't
understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as
opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements.

I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.

And I don't. There's plenty of "waivered" situations in government
as already noted.

You've written of quite disparate scenarios, having nothing to do with
the topic of discussion.


So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the
elimination of incentive licensing.

I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements.
I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional
privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being
tested for.

Nice waffle.

No waffle at all.

I don't agree.

THAT is my specific position and I do wish that
licensing privileges did have a relationship to the additional knowledge
being tested for.

But, Bill, that is for the FCC to decide and they are the final arbiter
;-)

There can be no other explanation.

I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of
privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that
I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore,
oppose incentive licensing.

You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed
certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at
odds with incentive licensing.

Yawn. Tellit to the FCC then.

Burp. I shall.

Clearly the ARRL BOD doesn't
accept your argument.

The League's board isn't required to accept it, nor have I noted any
opposition. I can make my views to clear to my Director and to those
other Directors and Vice-Directors I know. I've already made my view
known to Dave Sumner.

Seems to me I'm in good company then.

Not necessarily.

If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing
but
to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out
and
say so.

Because it isn't true!

That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming.

Yawn. Your perceptions do not make it so.

*Scratch* No, your quacking and swimming make it so.

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.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code
test)

The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by
granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a
one-time basis, it can be done permanently.

Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have
stated I support? Answer - NO!

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that
we'll
just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances.

"If it feels good, do it".

Depends on the decision. If it is a nice day and I have a decision
to make regarding Mow the Lawn or Take a drive in my antique car
with the top down...well I've taken the "feel good" decision on
that choice many times. Haven't you made similar decisions?
Wake up, decide it is a nice day and call your boss to tell him or
her you're taking a vaction day?

Izzat what we've had under discussion, taking a drive in an antique car
'cuz it's a nice day? How about calling your boss and telling him
you're taking a couple of days to mull over the ARRL's proposal for
revamping amateur radio testing?

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech
to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of
thousands.
Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it
necessary
to do.

Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their
logic. No need to repeat it again.

Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.

Repeat it all you want.

You told me that there was no need to repeat it.

I've neither the time nor inclination to
cut and paste it in here just to make you happy.

As long as you support freebie upgrades, you aren't going to make me
happy.

If anyone else
is curious...go to www.arrl.org.

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.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What
you
are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your
earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..."
sound
disingenuous.

What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference
between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes
you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl
and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free
to enjoy your own beliefs.

I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe
that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction
in requirements, I still see it happening.

There's that Twilight Zone music again.

It only seems to be playing at your place. A freebie upgrade is a
reduction in requirements *punto*.

Dave K8MN