"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.
Nevertheless, it is a change driven by membership, not Board
of Director fiat.
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.
Whatever the "official" NCI position will be,
it will not be "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 are free to bust a gut or whatever...but the reality still is
that a "one-time' upgrade is NOT an overall or permant
licensing requirement change.
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.
And just what will that end up meaning to the future?
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.
Such is life.
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.
Your inability to understand the difference between a "one-time"
upgrade and a permanent change can also be considered obtuse.
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!
Another story? Listening to the membership?
What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing.
Illogical construct. To be an NCI member requires opposition
to code testing. That's a basic NCI 101 item.
Would you support that?
Ditto my last comment.
Would you support the NCVEC proposal?
I have personally filed my own comments supporting ARRL
with the exception of the code test. I support the NCVEC
petition only to the extent it equals ARRL except I supported,
of course NCVEC's dropping code.
I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.
Life goes on, you are free to think whatever you wish
of us. Bottom line, our core agenda goes forward and,
for the moment, we have been asked by our memebrship
take a position on more than just the code issue. In
the end, the FCC is the only place all this matters.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
|