On Jan 22, 6:37*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:05:07 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:

* Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
* "legally" defrauding the US government?

Assuming for a moment that I did, indeed, hold two ship licenses (one of
which was for an ocean-going trawler - lmao) is there a law which states I
cannot hold multiple ship licenses?are you claiming you did or did not



* Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
* here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
* "Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
* licenses at one time...

So? Is there a law that places a limit on the # of callsigns one individual
can be trustee of?no but it is ilgela to comit fraud to obtain even one

obviously you agreed or you would still own the calls

Mark, every extra "deserves" a dozen extra callsigns.
:-)

Every extra also "deserves" to deceive the FCC as
to where their legal residence is. :-)

Every extra "deserves" to be trustee to a dozen
clubs that exist only in name. :-)

Now we get the "I never did anything illegal BS."

This is like O.J. doing an "If I Did It" book. :-)

Jeffrey Herman "confessed" that Mikey D. coerced
him into supplying him with a P.O. Box in Hawaii.
[his own if I remember...]

Mikey D. has never proved to anyone in here that
he really was a Hawaii resident. Nor has he proved
much of anything except he still has that snazzy
KH6 callsign. He got away with it. Others have.
That makes it "right." :-)

Circumventing the law and crawling through loop-
holes is not exactly ethical behavior for a mighty
morphin' amateur commando. It is closer to the
"maturity" of four-year-old-hams of 1998.

LA

On Jan 23, 6:23*pm, John Smith I wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
I have an extensive vocabulary, correct spelling, accurate grammar and
superb punctuation skills.Yeah, you might ... I am willing to grant you that.

But what the heck is that good for, all you spew is HARDCORE BS?

JS

He might be working on a new book manuscript.
Working title: "IF I Did It 2."

Or maybe "Effluvia Floats Again!" or even
"Hornblower Blows His Horn." :-)

LA

On Jan 22, 2:37*pm, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in ...
"KC4UAI" wrote:


From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license. *Afterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on he streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

The state of the radio art is constantly changing.
While not very rapidly in US amateur radio, most
of the other radio services have changed drastically.
So many changes that the COLEMs would be hard
pressed to keep up, certainly so the FCC if they
still had to make up the tests. Can the VEC QPC
keep up with slowly-changing amateur radio
technology? That's doubtful since there has been
little change in the written test content for over a
decade.

LA

wrote:

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.


Len:

Well. They could retest them and justify it by claiming it is just to
see if the old brass pounders are still alive and breathing!innocent-look

Oh yeah, what I am thinking, you can tell by the di-dahs!

Heck, guess you are right, be better just to take their cars away.

Regards,
JS

On Jan 23, 10:15*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote oups..com:

About 1961, FCC decided to "modernize" the license tests. They were
all converted to multiple choice format, with a new answer sheet that
could be machine-graded. This transition did not take place overnight,
though - the field offices first used up their supply of old tests
before going to the new ones.* * * *

I'm a little confused here. My 1956 Guide has Multiple choice for the
General test and Technician test at that time. Were they wrong?

Couple of points:

- Before March 21, 1987, the General and Technician used
exactly the same written test. The only difference in testing
for the two licenses was that General required 13 wpm code
and Technician required 5 wpm code.

- When the Conditional license existed, it too used the same
written test as the General and Technician.

- The questions and answers in the Ameco Guide you
have were not the actual questions used on the test. They
were written by Ameco, and were derived from the essay-
type study guides provided by the FCC.

- The General/Technician exams in the 1950s were not
100% multiple choice. There were a few draw-a-diagram
questions and some show-your-work calculation questions.
But the majority of the questions on those exams *were*
multiple choice, and the Ameco folks may have thought
their Guide to be adequate.

--

It is interesting that the Ameco book doesn't cover the
Extra exam. In those days (1956), the Advanced was
closed to new issues, but folks who held an Advanced
could continue to renew and modify as needed. A few
hams made the jump from General to Extra, but only a
few went for Extra in those years because it gave no
additional operating privileges, and the Extra required
another trip to an FCC examiner. The Conditional was
the by-mail equivalent of the General back then, and
if you lived more than 75 miles from an FCC exam
point you could get a Conditional. But there was no
by-mail option for the Extra. Conditionals made up a
sizable percentage of US amateur radio in the 1950s.
One source I saw said Conditionals accounted for about
25% of 1950s US hams. In that same period Extras
were only about 2%.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 23 Jan 2007 22:36:44 -0800, "
wrote:



On Jan 22, 2:370m, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in ...
"KC4UAI" wrote:


From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license.
fterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on he streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

The state of the radio art is constantly changing.
While not very rapidly in US amateur radio, most
of the other radio services have changed drastically.
So many changes that the COLEMs would be hard
pressed to keep up, certainly so the FCC if they
still had to make up the tests. Can the VEC QPC
keep up with slowly-changing amateur radio
technology? That's doubtful since there has been
little change in the written test content for over a
decade.

LA

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting. In my
stated, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

wrote:
- When the Conditional license existed, it too used the same
written test as the General and Technician.

I heard that the reason the FCC was so protective of
those exams is that they only had two different versions
of them. Any truth to that?

One source I saw said Conditionals accounted for about
25% of 1950s US hams.

As I remember, Conditionals who moved closer than 75 miles
to an FCC office were supposed to retake the General. I
never did that and, if I remember correctly, I was later
grandfathered to General - can't remember exactly when.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"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".

Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.


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.

Definitely. But the idea to me is that a Ham who scored 70 percent on
the test can still put up an antenna - maybe even correctly, operate a
radio, help out in an emergency, and certainly in some cases do some
fine CW work.

I just think that trying to decide on what exactly makes a "good
test" is so subjective. I wouldn't want to base it on what I know. I
definitely wouldn't want to base it on "genius Hams" level of
knowledge. Others will differ.

I would offer this though. From what I know of EE students, at
least in my environment, is that they are loaded up with classes. They
can't take any of the gut courses. Getting through their courses is a
challenge that a fair number take an extra year to do it.

Most of them who are not Hams already, graduate with just about the
same ability to put a station together as a newly minted General. Who
had a test from a public question pool.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"KH6HZ" wrote in
news
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Once you get away from distinct skills such as Morse code acumen,
you get into a grey area. I'm trying to envision a test where one
VE wants only plain english and another one thinks it is cool to
say things such as QSL, QTH, or HI-HI on voice. So much
subjectivity.

You're right. This is why I do not (currently) support any type of
"skills" test. Although I am not opposed to the idea, I cannot think
of a way to implement one fairly. Instead, I feel the focus should be
on "strengthening" (not read: make more difficult) the theory
examinations.

Wouldn't it be cool to have (whenever possible) a small station set
up at exams? Even a FT817 and a miracle whip antenna. Get the successful
testees the chance to get their first QSO as a new Ham. Start the
Elmering process right away. At that point the plain speech ham can give
their opinion on how to talk, and the HIHI ham can do the same, without
affecting the test process.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jan 23, 9:35*am, John Smith I wrote:
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!!!

...
73 de Jim, N2EY

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 ...

JS

John, you are positively profound on your prophecies! A bow to you
in honor of that gift.

Sister Nun of the Above went in "spanky" mode today doing just what
you described. Truly amazing. And predictable. :-)

I gotta give your prophecies a lot more respect!

Humbly bowing,

LA