Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...


Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?


No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]


I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that

we

need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will

be

interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.


Many people's mileage varys on that ...


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.


Testing = knowledge = bad


No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad


Hold on Carl. You are putting Jim's and my posts together here. (at
least I think) I support Morse code testing. But if it goes away, I
doubt I'll miss a minute of sleep.

But I don't think that the tested requirements for General are
irrelevant or unnecessary, etc. I think you were talking about element
one instead of the writtens?


[snip]


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?


Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...


You're still replying to Jim here. I gave up on the hypothetical
questions a little while ago.

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."


I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be

allowed

to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.


Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I support a system that is basically like what we have now. Only
difference is that Morse code is not tested for AT ALL. I would think
NCI would prefer a system like that instead of one in which there is
still a test for Extra. No one loses *anything at all*. No one gains.
And if the Technicians want to upgrade to General, they will now have
the ability to take the General test without Element one.

Now this does not address the problem of the different classes. I could
be convinced that that there is the need to change the classes. I would
ask for some solid evidence of the difficulties that people are going
through with the present system. But I really don't think that people
are having such difficulties.

I keep a database that has numbers assigned to parts that are 50 years
old. Those numbers aren't used any more, and in fact are assigned new
names. But the old names are still there. It isn't a problem at all, and
in fact would be more trouble to change than it is to just let it alone.


I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.


I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)


Of course not!

I do care about integrity.


Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.