RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 9th 05, 07:28 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

From: on Thurs, Dec 8 2005 5:19 pm

wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

"Lower?" By whose standards? Other that YOURS, of course...:-)

Does it matter? You will look down on others anyway...:-)

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

I'd call it an amateur radio license. :-)

While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really.

Yes, REALLY.

No, not REALLY.

Heh heh. Well, since YOUR way is always the "best" way,
please define for us what your superimportant, divine
concept of classes/grades/status/rank/privileges are.

Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

Who said it was?

Tsk, tsk, you want to FIRE all those that don't agree with
your "boss" concepts...

Consider yourself "trumped." :-)

If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Says who? The only Guild I have a card for doesn't
require those levels.

That's an extraordinary circumstance.

NOT out here where I live, the international center for
television and motion picture industry...the former national
center for aerospace industry. Lots and lots of Guilds
and Unions here in the southwest USA.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't.

Then why do you keep harping on that? Why does the ARRL?

"Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to
keep abrest of technology advancements (see the
old "Amateurs Code" on that).

How about keeping abreast of correct spelling? ;-)

I don't work in the lingerie business so I use the
alternate form found in dictionaries.

But, you are trying to MISDIRECT again. Concentrate on
WHY MUST ONE "UPGRADE" TO A "HIGHER" CLASS LICENSE?

To get a "higher class" license so that you can continue
to look down on "lesser classes" with impunity?

To blindly follow the league's directives of "upgrading?"

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

Ah, PROGRESS! Congratulations, Jimmie, you CAN do some
logical thinking!

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.

Oh, oh...right away you slipped off the logical path.

IF AND ONLY IF there were just ONE license (no classes),
then the FCC would lay down DIFFERENT regulations for
the written test. Following that, the VEC QPC would have
to reorganize the single question pool to a new set of
questions and answers.

The reason - which should be obvious to you but isn't -
is that there would be NO differences between classes
so many of the questions of the old class (distinction)
system WOULD NOT APPLY.

Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, no, no. You don't seem to understand. With only
ONE license, there would be NO DIFFERENCES IN CLASSES
because there would NOT BE any classes.

That's a whole new paradigm. You can't conceive of that
because you are completely enclosed in the conservative
mental box of conventional thinking.

So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

I'm not "proposing" anything in regards to radio. :-)

The concept of ONE LICENSE existed in the beginning of
United States amateur radio.

Internal amateur politics resulted in the piece-by-piece
changes that peaked in the Byzantine six-class system
existing before 2000 restructuring. You can try all
sorts of sugar-coated spin on that to deny the amateur
politics but that doesn't erase the obvious that it WAS
politics within the "amateur community."

United States amateur radio evolved to an oligarchy, a
"one-party" amateur politics thing wherein major influence
was contained in the ARRL and their ruling cadre of OTs
who "knew what was 'best' for every amateur." The peak
of that may have been reached in the late 1970s. There's
been a very slow transition from that oligarchy (I hesitate
to use dictatorship) due to CHANGES in freedom and ability
to discuss NEW THINGS. A catalyst for that was the
ubiquitous personal computer used for communications,
first over BBSs and now the Internet...especially the
Internet with every federal agency now having an Internet
portal and responsive to the ordinary citizen.

"Tradition" can be used as a security blanket. Keeping the
old ways of doing things intact is comforting, a known
thing, certain. It can be a tremendous enhancement to the
unfortunate tendency of many humans to proclaim themselves
"better" than other humans through certain skills. That's
just a basic survival instinct misapplied. There is no
quantifiable limit on what humans can do if they cast off
the misapplied tradition and try new concepts, ideas, give
those a chance. Of course there's no guarantee that new
things WILL work out better for all...but there's no
guarantee that new things CANNOT be better. Those have to
be tried out first but some open-minded reasoning can
determine the probability of successs. Another word for
that is PROGRESS. It is all around us in everyday life.

The ultra-conservative will balk at ANY change of their
misapplied traditions. They are secure in their known
concepts, take comfort in being believers; "it has always
been that way and it will always be so" is a maxim of the
ultra-conservative that fails repeatedly. Conservatism
is basically a fear of the unknown, a maifestation of basic
survival instincts. However, as abundantly proven in the
progress of humankind, liberalism in some concepts can make
for better survival, plus improvement for the entire group.

You've chosen to be an ultra-conservative believer in
steadfastly holding to old concepts. You have met the old
tests (originated by older men) and achieved a "position"
and thus consider yourself a "superior" in one field of
avocational activity. You wish to maintain all those old
concepts because, if those were eliminated, you would not
have the same "superior" status above others. That's a
very selfish act, very anthropomorphic, when applied to an
avocational group of over a half million spread all over
the USA. That selfish minority view delays progress for
the majority.