"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.


So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket
match,
I take the former every time.


When you put it that way, yes. Bu I expect that there will be lots of
that taffy pulling, when we have a former President of NCI espousing his
terrible proposed changes,

What are you talking about above? If you're refering to W5YI, he
may have made/not made some PERSONAL comments in the NCVEC
meeting, but as far as I can read, they did not get into the NCVEC
petition ...

while Carl's method would work without making a mess.
By this, I take it you mean NCI's petition ... we appreciate your kind
words of support. :-)

But the FCC has to weigh both. There will probably be even more
proposals as time goes on.

And since many of the statement I've seen from them talk about their
desire to remove regulations, I wonder what the final outcome might be.
In an extreme (admittedly unlikely) outcome, we may not have to worry
about the numbering of the elements. There may be no elements. But I see
a possibility of there being only one element after the dust settles.

The FCC is NOT going to abandon amateur testing ... they can't under
the ITU Radio Regulations ... in fact, there is an ITU Recommenation
on the qualifications of amateurs that is mentioned, though not in a
mandatory
way, in the newly-revised Article 25 ... it's there as "good advice/guidance
to administrations" ...

Carl - wk3c