Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Was it W. C. Fields who objected to having a battle
of wits with an unarmed opponent? Winston Churchill?

Cecil:

Well, yes and no. While it is true you must be born with the "gray
matter" necessary, it is how you end up using it that really matters.

Education can assist to that goal very nicely. Indeed, it is possible
to "educate" a monkey--well, at least to some degree. puzzled-look

Regards,
JS

Like I said, the Amateur Radio Service is a one-way
national service

And I thought amateur radio was mainly 2-way

From: John Smith I on Tues, Jan 23 2007 9:35 am

wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:


The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's
the fact that
you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his
mistakes
here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction
is
100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much
sums it all up:

Now that's funny. The problem with Len is he has pulled some covers
here and pi$$ed off a few. As to Len being perfect? Well, maybe, maybe
not--I kinda like him. As for Len being "predictable", hey look in a
mirror, you are one we are making fun of for that very thing!!!

Hee hee hee hee ... ain't that some HYPOCRISY of theirs! :-)

Gotta love them "profiles." Homeland security wannabes?
:-)


You guys are VERY small MEN. Len knows that, I know that, the whole
world knows that. If you attempt to step away from it, you can't. You
will now be seen for what you truly are. You know that and it irks you,
don't take that anger out on Len ...

John, they MUST attack. They aren't respected for their
"leadership" (that they claim, either overtly or covertly).
They have a NEED to CONTROL. In der Uber Oberst's
case, it seems compounded by a NEED to push
others around.

They are, as you say, LITTLE men. Little men act that
way. It isn't restricted to amateur radio. It covers
all human activity.

I'm sure US amateur radio can be fun. It might be nice
to have a ham license other than from the FDA. But NOT
in the style these LITTLE men dictate.

Back about 44 or so years ago, it was a Saturday and I
had the morning free. Being a nice day outside, I
thought to walk two blocks to a Ralphs supermarket and
pick up a few things. Our apartment was next to a two-
block long public park and the Little League teams
were out there warming up. I watched for a while. One
of the boys just didn't want to play ball. His jock
dad kept harranging him to "get out there!" Boy
resisted. Finally dad yelled loudly to him, "You're
gonna go out there and enjoy playing whether you like
it or not!" some muffled chuckles from the sidelines

That jock dad is about like the LITTLE men in here,
pretenders at being big-league and trying to control
all via paternal terror tactics. It's not about
having "fun" in amateur radio, it's about having
"controlled fun," i.e., doing as the "jocks" (with
cute little amateur uniforms on) say everyone should
act, expecting "respect" for being so ruff and tuff,
doing as the "jocks" say one "should."

It won't be long now to the final days of amateur
morse code testing in the USA. To all those ruff,
tuff "jocks," I just flip them the bird. :-)

LA

On Jan 23, 6:23*am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
"No matter what employment, education, life experience or
government/military service a person has, if that person
disagrees with any of Len's views, or corrects any of Len's
mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's insults, ridicule,
name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs,
excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."That's way too much for me toparseat 5am.

Let me see if I can put it in simplier terms

"If you don't kiss Len's ass, expect to be the target of his vitriol".

Looks like a pretty accurate parsing job...

Yeah, that sounds about right.

The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you
disagreed with Len.

I laugh about it to this day. Thousands of pages of comments, hundreds (if
not thousands of hams) responding, and Lennie

Heck, Len's comments and reply comments alone amount to dozens if not
hundreds of pages.

Consider that some poor soul at FCC had to read all of that...

What I find most amusing is that he took all that trouble to Reply
Comment to you, when your comments were so solidly in the Nocodetest
camp.

Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We
disagree on the Morse Code test in that you support complete
elimination of that test and I don't.

Something a few of the posters here (oddly enough, the most vocal/rabid
members of the No-Code Agenda, it would seem) cannot simply seem to grasp is
that gentlemen can agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem
attacks.

All sorts of reasons for that. Some consider acting civilized to be a
sign of weakness. Others consider being proved wrong to be a
humiliation, and lash out at the messenger.

I am not entirely opposed to having a "skills test" in addition to a theory
examination. There is precedent in other testing scenarios maintained by the
government. For example, to get a pilot's license, you not only take a
written test, you also have to take a 'hands on' test.

Of course, CW is a very easy method "skills test" to implement, which makes
it a natural selection for the that component in ham radio testing.

Plus the fact that Morse Code is widely used in amateur radio.


I can understand why you would support such a test. This is, IMO, a
legitimate course of reasoning on your part and I can understand the
viewpoint.

TNX

While I agree with it in principle, personally, I do not feel that a morse
test is a good selection for a skills test.

Why not?

Furthermore, I cannot think of a really good alternative, either. Thus,
until someone can present a very concise idea on how to implement a
pertinent skills test in the ARS today, I'll fall back to the side of having
none.

Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of
skills tests.

For example, imagine a simple test of voice operating skill where a
person being tested has to send a message in standard form and receive
one, using standard phonetics and good amateur operating practice.

The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC

Unfortunately, the trend with licensing in ham radio is very similiar to the
trend we saw wih CB radio licensing back in the mid 70's. It concerns me
that testing gets more and more lax.

Me too.

Another disturbing trend is the desire to modify our licensing standards for
"quantity". Everyone focuses on license numbers, and continuing to grow the
number of licensed amateurs. I believe the majority of changes in our
licensing system over the past 15 years has been directly related to
people's desires to 'swell our ranks'.

I would say 25 years.

I've always been a proponent of quality over quantity. I would rather have
one person interested in learning radio electronics, antenna theory, etc.
over two people who are nothing more than glorified applicance operators.

I think one of the reasons for the recent lack of growth was
the popularization of amateur radio as a personal radio
service in the 1980s and 1990s. There's nothing wrong
with using amateur radio for that purpose, and the
repeater/HT/autopatch boom of those years made it practical

A lot of folks who started out that way turned out to be really good
hams. Some branched out into other areas of amateur radio, others did
not.

But with the proliferation of inexpensive cell phones, that source of
new hams has been greatly reduced. Some of those who did get licensed
for personal radio reasons have
let their licenses lapse because the cell phone does the job now.

You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"?

I may no longer be a member. Years ago Carl threatened to throw me out of
NCI over my criticism of NCI publically, under the guise of me "really not
being a no-code test advocate". What Stevenson really wanted was an army of
little mindless zealots who reguritated what they were spoon-fed by NCI -- *
something I was not.

That's the old Carl.

The new (post-2001) Carl is a much nicer guy. Very reasonable and well
behaved, whether you agree with him or not. Look up some of his
more-recent posts and see.

See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has
to do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's
showtime.

Lennie's fun to wind-up. Every time I post, you know his blood pressure
rises a couple of points. He can't resist the urge to throw out some acerbic
comments.

What will he do after Feb 23?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Plus the fact that Morse Code is widely used in amateur radio.

Yes, but that IMO doesn't justify it as a skill test with a pass/fail
result.

In fact, with the largest license class being the Tech, it would be more
logical to suggest an operating mode commonly in use by the vast majority of
techs -- FM voice.


Why not?

Several reasons. First, CW is but one of many modes in use in the ARS today.
I do not feel it is appropriate to weight the CW test heavily in testing,
such that it becomes a pass/fail element. Simply put, some people may have
no interest in operating CW.

Offhand, I do not recall the percentage of hams actively using CW. I vaguely
recall there was a study in the mid 90's. A quick google only yielded one
recent survey, and that was hardly scientific. W5ALT presented some
interesting numbers, but likewise those are questionable and only represent
activity observed, not necessarily the preferred operating mode of
(non-actively-transmitting) hams.

Falling back to 97.1, while CW facilitates an amateur to meet all those
goals, so does every other operating mode.


Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of
skills tests.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, a skills test requires a greater effort on the part
of VEs to implement, test, and grade. It is highly unlikely we would ever
see *ANY* suggestion that makes testing "harder" ever implemented by the
FCC. Fact is, it is politically incorrect to "fail" people. We will never
see the return of a skills test to the ARS. That's the sad reality of the
situation.


For example, imagine a simple test of voice operating skill where a
person being tested has to send a message in standard form and receive
one, using standard phonetics and good amateur operating practice.

I'd almost like to see a form of Elmering system, where as a new ham your
first few contacts are handled under the watchful eye of an older, more
experienced ham, who can show you the "ropes". Naturally, we can do this
today without any rules changes on the part of the FCC.


I would say 25 years.

I believe you've been licensed longer than I. My introduction to amateur
radio really didn't occur until 1982. I wouldn't argue your point. In the
past with the "private" question pools and examination guides, certainly
testing became "easier" when the pools went public (before my time). My own
observations since becoming licensed in the early 90's is the testing
infrastructure has been continuously weakened.


I think one of the reasons for the recent lack of growth was
the popularization of amateur radio as a personal radio
service in the 1980s and 1990s. [...] Some of those who did
get licensed for personal radio reasons have let their licenses
lapse because the cell phone does the job now.

Unfortunately true. The problem the ARS will face now is people will point
at the dropping number of hams as a reason why we have to "fix" the
licensing/testing system by dumbing it down even further.

The new (post-2001) Carl is a much nicer guy. Very reasonable and well
behaved, whether you agree with him or not. Look up some of his
more-recent posts and see.

Maybe he's mellowed with age. I have.


What will he do after Feb 23?

He'll find something to complain about. That's all he really wants to do...
bitch moan and complain. A sad cry for attention in his sunset years. We can
only hope cable internet at the retirement home drops out for a period of
time

73
KH6HZ

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

I have an almost photographic memory. When I studied fot the
tests, I would take an on-line test. Any and all questions
that I got wron, I hit a book and figured out the correct
answer. I read it - usually once, and then I knew the answer.
Was I memorizing?

At some level, yes.

You either memorized the process/algorithm/information required to
properly process a question of the nature you missed (for example, a
resistance computation), or you simply word-associated/familiarized
yourself with the question pool enough that you recognized the correct
answer when you saw it.


It's both, depending on the need. I had quite a problem with ARRL's
code practice CD. Once through and I had (unfortunately) memorized the
CD. But not the code!!



In the first case, you engaged in the process which virtually all
people go thru to learn a new skill, etc. (certain base memories have
to be memorized, i.e. formulas, definitions, etc.) This isn't a bad
thing. It forms a basis from which you can then build upon the
knowledge.

In the second case, all you did is word-associate the answers, without
any real understanding of the theory behind the answer. This IMO is a
bad thing, and isn't what we should be promoting with our licensing
examinations.

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is not
all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look it up and
use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught dead without my
ARRL handbook.


I offered that challenge because I hear so much about rote
memory. Some of the curmudgeons are correct in that a person
who memorizes the pool is a lot dumber than a person who
learns it.

I can't say whether a person who word-associates the pools and manages
to get a license is more or less intelligent than someone who learns
the material

My application of the word dumb is in reference to doing it the hard way
instead of the way one should.



(i.e. someone with a photographic memory could also be
rated as a genius from an IQ perspective.) All I can say is that, IMO,
the type of person the ARS should be striving for is the person who
learns the underlying technical material to pass the examination.

I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I just
don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am, as some
hams do.

Disclaimer: I am pretty competent in matters of computers, digital
electronics, audio equipment, and their applications to video work. I'm
a bit lacking in RF, which is one of the reasons that I became a Ham.


But it doesn't have to. We have the options of putting out a
fair amoount of power, and to experiment, and work with
equipment of our oown design and manufacture, and to modify
that equipment as long as it stays within whatever legal
performance limits as apply.

I know very, very few people who build their own gear these days.
Probably the only thing I've seen someone build in the past 3 years is
a QRP transmitter and a dipole.

Yer' hangin' with the wrong crowd, Mike! Just kidding. But there is
actually quite a bit of experimenting going on.


That's what the testing is about. No one is required to make
use of all the priveliges.

No, but testing should ensure that the applicant actually *knows* the
material they are being tested on. The current structure of the theory
examination testing does not accomplish that.

It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to test
to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

What you speak of would almost require a large structured
apprentice program.

rest snipped..


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

...
John, they MUST attack. They aren't respected for their
"leadership" (that they claim, either overtly or covertly).
They have a NEED to CONTROL. In der Uber Oberst's
case, it seems compounded by a NEED to push
others around.

Leadership? Where? I had scout masters who looked like John Wayne when
these guys attempt to stand in, even, their (the scout masters) shadows.
Fact is, boy scouts is where I built my first one tube regenerative
receiver ... solder joints looked horrible--but it worked!!!


They are, as you say, LITTLE men. Little men act that
way. It isn't restricted to amateur radio. It covers
all human activity.

Amen brother ...

Regards,
JS

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is
not all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look
it up and use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught
dead without my ARRL handbook.

Yes, but what about those who simply word associate the answers and never
bother to learn the underlying theory at all? Are they really a benefit to
the ARS, other than upping the "body count".


I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I
just don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am,
as some hams do.

I believe the theory examinations should be structured to test people on
basic knowledge and skills -- the building blocks they use to further their
journey in ham radio. I do not feel it is unreasonable to expect folks who
get licensed to actually 'know' these things.


It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to
test to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

70% isn't necessarily "proficient". I would say 70% is adequate for passing
the test. I would be hard pressed, for instance, to say an employee who gets
70% of their work correct is proficient at their job.

73
KH6HZ

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:

On the other hand, we could identify what the critical tasks a ham
operator needs to operate, tell the prospective ham what those tasks
are, give the prospective ham the answers to those tasks (such as a
question and answer pool) and then test on those identified
objectives. After the new ham gets his license to get on the air, we
could provide him with a learning environment to enhance those basic
skills and become a more experienced and adept operator.

Me, I go for plan "B."

Hear, hear!

Q and A pools are here to stay, Amateur radio is no exception. The
moaning and wailing, gnashing of teeth and hand wringing about the good
old days -that my research convinces me *weren't* anyhow - is more
likely just nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist.

I can understand that a little bit. Since I got my license, I've
started a love affair with hollow state. I love the heat, the look and
feel, even the smell of that vintage equipment.

But there is too much evidence that those good old days weren't all
that good after all.

I wonder who is going to provide a better learning environment,
people such as myelf - a presumably substandard product of the dumbed
down newfangled system, who only passed a 5wpm code test, and the
"easy" new tests, or one of the old geniuses who comes into the room
with the attitude that the new ham is as likely an idiot as not?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

spews forth the following excrement:

what requirement is ther that they be betterment to the ARS if
that is a requirement you need to turn in your ASAP

I have an extensive vocabulary, correct spelling, accurate grammar and
superb punctuation skills.

All things you lack.

Those are just "for starters", too, Morkie.