"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote:
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers
5.0 to 5.5MHz.

How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of homebrew,
and
the hobby in general make such an error?

Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person
derides him without mercy.

Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there was
evidence needed for retesting Full licence
holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this
individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing
Fulls.

Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice
little earner" not to be implemented.

The same could be said of any retesting regime Frank.

The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. After all, they can run 400W,
operate maritime mobile etc. and thus the potential for serious issues is
far greater if they don't know what they are doing.

The argument seems to go a step or two further than simply re-testing,
and that is to examine the knowledge or otherwise of new techniques.
Take DSP as an example. I've never used it, and am not interested in ever
using it. Why should I be tested to see if I know how it works, and when
it is discovered that I know bog all about it and care even less, why
should I lose the ability to use the modes I've used over the past 48 years?

The point is Frank, those calling for the retesting of newcomers all to
often seem to be far from competent themselves. Moreover, they expect
others to show progress yet don't seem to have even maintained the
knowledge the supposedly had at the time of their exam.

Equally, those who call anyone using commercial kit CBers, tend to have a
collection of commercial kit themselves.

Not to mention a history of having used CB themselves, possibly more than
those they attack.

If there is a case for enforcing progress for one group of licensees then
there is a case for all.

Of course, by and large those calling for enforcing progress for newcomers
or even just retesting are merely being vindictive. They also fear enforced
progress for themselves as they know they would fail.