Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

William wrote:

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.

Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.


In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.


Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.

You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.


You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.


If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.


I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.


It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.


So NOW we have another story! What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing. Would you
support that? Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.



- Your humble Cassandra...

- Mike KB3EIA -