The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW,
they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI
and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more
amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look
bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards
we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker.

Welcome to CB everybody.

In article t,
o (known to some as Retard Invasion) scribed...

Drivelectomy

Troll-o-Meter

0----5----10
^
|
|
|

Better luck next time, bunky.

*PLONK!*

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

Retard Invasion wrote:
The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW,
they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI
and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more
amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look
bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards
we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker.

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

And I do agree that we need to strongly tighten up the technical part of
the tests.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

I've been in favor of this stance for almost a decade.

In my Y2K restructuring comments, I argued for a reduction in the number of
license classes to only 2 (One 50MHZ only, one all privileges), ultimate
elimination of the code test (I favored a 5wpm reduction with eventual
'sunset clause' once the treaty requirement was changed), and strengthing
the theory examinations.

The problem I see with the theory examinations, as currently structured, is
they do not require applicants to demonstrate a full understanding of the
topical material.

For example, the way the current examinations are structured, you could get
wrong each and every question on rules and regulations -- yet still pass the
examination because you have good math skills.

Instead, I feel each applicant should be required to pass every sub-element,
with a score of 70% or higher. So, you would have to get 70%+ on the rules
and regs, 70%+ on antenna theory, etc. I made many of these points in my Y2K
restructuring comments.

However, it is highly unlikely that the FCC will ever adopt such a strategy.
The trend is to make licensing easier and easier. I suspect over the next 2
decades you'll see a further push to weaken the theory examinations.
Probably not for the next 5 years or so, but eventually some people will
start to make the claim that the "hard" theory exams are keeping "potential"
people away from the ARS.

This is unfortunate, because in the long term I do not think it helps the
amateur radio service. Our knowledge of things "radio" -- propagation,
electronics, etc. -- is what has set us apart from other "consumer"-type
radio services.

73
kh6hz

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

I've been in favor of this stance for almost a decade.

In my Y2K restructuring comments, I argued for a reduction in the number
of license classes to only 2 (One 50MHZ only, one all privileges),
ultimate elimination of the code test (I favored a 5wpm reduction with
eventual 'sunset clause' once the treaty requirement was changed), and
strengthing the theory examinations.

The problem I see with the theory examinations, as currently structured,
is they do not require applicants to demonstrate a full understanding of
the topical material.

For example, the way the current examinations are structured, you could
get wrong each and every question on rules and regulations -- yet still
pass the examination because you have good math skills.

Instead, I feel each applicant should be required to pass every
sub-element, with a score of 70% or higher. So, you would have to get 70%+
on the rules and regs, 70%+ on antenna theory, etc. I made many of these
points in my Y2K restructuring comments.

However, it is highly unlikely that the FCC will ever adopt such a
strategy. The trend is to make licensing easier and easier. I suspect over
the next 2 decades you'll see a further push to weaken the theory
examinations. Probably not for the next 5 years or so, but eventually some
people will start to make the claim that the "hard" theory exams are
keeping "potential" people away from the ARS.

This is unfortunate, because in the long term I do not think it helps the
amateur radio service. Our knowledge of things "radio" -- propagation,
electronics, etc. -- is what has set us apart from other "consumer"-type
radio services.

73
kh6hz


These Q&A manuals don't do dick for "teaching". All they do is give the
possible answers, the right answer and a hair off a nats ass of an
explanation as to WHY it is the answer. I've got FCC study guides that were
VAGUE to say the least - one sheet of paper - front and back. They didn't
give you the "exact" questions which "might" be found - only samples of the
types of questions. Years ago - when you took the FCC exams, if you didn't
know electronics - either from school OR some decent "Heathkit" Ham Prep
Courses, you were pretty much destined to fail. Many today are just studying
these Q&A guides to get their license and letting the ball drop there -
UNLESS they want to move up - then they buy the next Q&A and repeat the same
process - not really learning the ins and outs. YES - they learn what a
resistor looks like - what it is supposed to do and so on - but NOT in depth
as they should. Same with many other parts. And even at that - they learn
only a small fraction of what any "electronics tech" is in need to know to
try to function at least half way decent.

I welcome new hams - but they really SHOULD learn the ropes to get maximum
benefit out of their hobby.
Only THEN can they enjoy many of the things ham radio affords the hobby.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou

I have to agree.... I am surprised at the wholly naive (and incredibly
basic) questions I get from not a few newly licensed Extras. Of course,
I give the best info I can and try to help. But, I am still surprised
and maybe a bit disappointed.... Hopefully, and with time, they'll
assimilate the requisite knowledge. Dunno... maybe I'm expecting too much?

de K3HVG


These Q&A manuals don't do dick for "teaching". All they do is give the
possible answers, the right answer and a hair off a nats ass of an
explanation as to WHY it is the answer.

I welcome new hams - but they really SHOULD learn the ropes to get maximum
benefit out of their hobby.
Only THEN can they enjoy many of the things ham radio affords the hobby.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou

Radiosrfun wrote:
Years ago - when you took the FCC exams, if you didn't
know electronics - either from school OR some decent "Heathkit" Ham Prep
Courses, you were pretty much destined to fail.

When I took the General Class exam in 1953, I didn't
know anything except high school algebra. I *memorized*
the ARRL License Manual in order to pass the exam and
I just *memorized* the new frequency allocations 54
years later. Human memory should not be underestimated.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

K3HVG wrote:
I have to agree.... I am surprised at the wholly naive (and incredibly
basic) questions I get from not a few newly licensed Extras. Of course,
I give the best info I can and try to help. But, I am still surprised
and maybe a bit disappointed.... Hopefully, and with time, they'll
assimilate the requisite knowledge. Dunno... maybe I'm expecting too much?

Maybe you are forgetting the time when you couldn't
tell your posterior from a hole in the ground?
Amateur radio exams are *entrance* exams, not
diplomas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Nope.... I don't think I'm forgetting anything (regarding this
discussion, of course). In past times, the Extra did, indeed, connote
something more than the passing ability to zero the ohms scale on a
Simpson 260 or use of a U-Test-Em tube checker at the local drug store.

I too agree! I'm a lowly tech class op,I have more fun with a soldering iron
in hand than with a mike.I went to electronics school when the I.C. chip was
on the cover of Popular Electronics :-)
"Radiosrfun" wrote in message
...
"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical
requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

I've been in favor of this stance for almost a decade.

In my Y2K restructuring comments, I argued for a reduction in the number
of license classes to only 2 (One 50MHZ only, one all privileges),
ultimate elimination of the code test (I favored a 5wpm reduction with
eventual 'sunset clause' once the treaty requirement was changed), and
strengthing the theory examinations.

The problem I see with the theory examinations, as currently structured,
is they do not require applicants to demonstrate a full understanding of
the topical material.

For example, the way the current examinations are structured, you could
get wrong each and every question on rules and regulations -- yet still
pass the examination because you have good math skills.

Instead, I feel each applicant should be required to pass every
sub-element, with a score of 70% or higher. So, you would have to get
70%+
on the rules and regs, 70%+ on antenna theory, etc. I made many of these
points in my Y2K restructuring comments.

However, it is highly unlikely that the FCC will ever adopt such a
strategy. The trend is to make licensing easier and easier. I suspect
over
the next 2 decades you'll see a further push to weaken the theory
examinations. Probably not for the next 5 years or so, but eventually
some
people will start to make the claim that the "hard" theory exams are
keeping "potential" people away from the ARS.

This is unfortunate, because in the long term I do not think it helps
the
amateur radio service. Our knowledge of things "radio" -- propagation,
electronics, etc. -- is what has set us apart from other "consumer"-type
radio services.

73
kh6hz


These Q&A manuals don't do dick for "teaching". All they do is give the
possible answers, the right answer and a hair off a nats ass of an
explanation as to WHY it is the answer. I've got FCC study guides that
were
VAGUE to say the least - one sheet of paper - front and back. They didn't
give you the "exact" questions which "might" be found - only samples of
the
types of questions. Years ago - when you took the FCC exams, if you didn't
know electronics - either from school OR some decent "Heathkit" Ham Prep
Courses, you were pretty much destined to fail. Many today are just
studying
these Q&A guides to get their license and letting the ball drop there -
UNLESS they want to move up - then they buy the next Q&A and repeat the
same
process - not really learning the ins and outs. YES - they learn what a
resistor looks like - what it is supposed to do and so on - but NOT in
depth
as they should. Same with many other parts. And even at that - they learn
only a small fraction of what any "electronics tech" is in need to know to
try to function at least half way decent.

I welcome new hams - but they really SHOULD learn the ropes to get maximum
benefit out of their hobby.
Only THEN can they enjoy many of the things ham radio affords the hobby.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou