wrote:

...
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


Len:

Like with Hemingway, I cannot take the credit for that, you old devil.

He simply has a "hard on" for you which he cannot satisfy, you tease!
chuckling

Regards,
JS

From: Bob Brock on Wed, Jan 24 2007 9:12 am

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.
Afterall, that is what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on the 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]

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting.

My apologies to you, Bob. Sometimes it is hard to
discern who is serious or who is wry in this Din
of Inequity. [as in ham-on-wry... :-) ]

In my
state, 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.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written. Went to the California state
DMV website and brushed up on new laws. Passed the
written and again, NO actual vehicle driving test. [I had
then been driving every day of those ten years...how did
they think I GOT to the DMV office? :-) ] No, none, zip,
nada moving or stationary violations in ten years.

But, seriously speaking, voice in hushed tone a radio
hobby test isn't even close to a requirement to operate
a vehicle that can KILL others as a result of a minor
lapse of attention. The California DMV driver test (full-
on version) is multiple-choice. The number of questions?
I forgot, but the latest info can be obtained on the 'net.
The nature of operating a heavy vehicle mandates at least
a cursory check of basic physical abilities by officials
whose main task is public safety.

There's NO such need in amateur radio, nor has it been so
for commercial radio licenses for as long as I've been
licensed there (51 years). PERHAPS a periodic review of
new radio regulations? Sort of like what I call the
"shortie" test at the CA DMV. That might be applicable
for the single-Part amateur regs in the USA, but the
commercial radio licenses cover operating in MANY
different radio services covered by as many Parts in
Title 47. Plus, some radio services don't need all
radio operating personnel to have any form of license.

SOME form of licensing is needed for a station, especially
one that can spritz out RF energy all over the globe,
ionosphere permitting. For safety reasons? I don't think
so. Amateurs aren't allowed microwave-cooking kinds of
powers or have they the kilowatts needed to heat-cure
plywood laminations in 32 sq. ft. sheets. Radio amateurs
can kill themselves doing dumb NON-amateur things, so
there isn't a need for yet-another governmental watchdog
on that. I'd say the jury is still out on "RF exposure"
at HF even though it is codified in law (and has questions
on the test)...at least at amateur allowed RF powers.
For technical reasons? Yes, the activity IS technological.
For regulatory reasons, absolutely. Part 97 alone is many
many changes in the last 10 years; I can see that in bound
volumes from the GPO on Title 47 versus today's regs
available at the GPO website.

But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

From: on Wed, Jan 24 2007 12:07 pm


On 23 Jan 2007 22:13:37 -0800, " wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:370m, wrote:

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

hmm I guess I get to start MY own collection in 30 days

Sunnuvagun! How about that? :-)

Not a good idea even you could still get away with it.


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

but deciet of stalker that has threaten is forribeen to mere tech

All them old extras are a law unto themselves.


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

of course hi did nothing wrong that is why he foled at the first brush
with the law

Deignan got away with it because there was NO SPECIFIC
regulation against it...and the records keeping of the
FCC did not flag it down for those doing the club call
processing. He still didn't beat the California ham
who had over 30 "club" calls. :-)

Deignan's actions violated the SPIRIT OF THE LAW. I'm no
attorney but several admitted to the California Bar have
assured me that such is good for court action. They did
differ on the kind of court but that is a trivial matter.
It is still prosecuteable.


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

sorry I am sure the OJ is better writen and better reading

It's beside the point now, nearly all the copies have
been destroyed, unsold. TS for OJ and potential
profits.


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

oh so the coastie conspired to defraud the feds I guess it it was a
good thing for jeff he never had the motovation to become an officer
he could have been courtmartailed for that

Courts martial for Jeffie? Doubt it. That's getting
a bit far afield from the UCMJ. Defrauding the United
States Postal Service IS a federal crime but the federal
courts can handle that (if there is sufficient proof
to warrant prosecution).

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." :-)

hmmm other extras have but he must ever vigulant for mere techs daring
to defend themselves

Any class having Vanity Call privileges could have done
it. shrug

Problem is, MOST licensed amateurs are content with just
ONE license or they might be a trustee of ONE club license.
They exist and the club is probably a real club with
membership rolls and all that.

When ONE licensed amateur is trustee of MANY clubs, the
FCC can (and has) rightfully questioned whether or not
those clubs existed by asking for membership, meeting
locations, etc. If those weren't supplied, the FCC can
logically consider the "club" non-existant and yank the
license. Usually they do a letter request for the
pertinent information first, giving an "easy out." The
hoarding individual can then request the FCC to drop the
"club" call in lieu of supplying bogus "club" info.
Least fuss for all that way. However, the STIGMA remains,
onus on the hoarder. Forever. shrug

LA

On Jan 24, 5:56*pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ...

* *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,

* *LALen:

Like with Hemingway, I cannot take the credit for that, you old devil.

He simply has a "hard on" for you which he cannot satisfy, you tease!
chuckling

My read on the Cranky Spanky is twofold: The guy is a control freak
trying to get a "rep" as all-seeing, all-knowing guru; he is trying
to
button-push certain others so that they get "wound up" and say real
nasty things that would allow him to go crying to Google for help to
have the nasties banned forever and ever. :-)

Both of those items above would accomplish what he seeks,
RECOGNITION. A side benefit would be "respect."

Yanno, there is some "respect" for someone who works SO
DOGGEDLY at the "correction" game. Before work, after work,
almost any time free. It's like he got NO other thing in mind. :-)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder. He got, not me. :-)

Some of these poor dumm****s never did the BBS thing in a large
urban area before Internet. They've missed a HEAP of such
compulsive-obsessive disordered minds on the loose, frazzling
the nerves of sysops all over. Was easy to "moderate" them by
just Locking Them Out. :-) I've seen ten kinds of examples of
control-freaks, button-pushers, disordered minds for every one
who has ever been in here. They don't know that they've been
replied-to (sometimes) with the SAME thing they do to others!

Utterly fascinating to see both. :-)

All the best,
LA

On Jan 24, 10:00*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

Hello Cecil,

I don't know if there were only two exams in those days. I do know that
there were not a
lot of different exam versions then - I've seen reports of there being
only three, and others that the number never exceeded five

In any event, there were so few that if a person kept going back to FCC
and retook the written exam, pretty soon they'd have to come across the
exact same exam they'd taken before.

As I understand it, the limited number of different written exams was
also one reason for
the 30-day-wait-before-retesting rule.

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.

What happened was this:

Prior to about 1953, all amateur exams were conducted by FCC unless
someone lived more than 125 miles "air-line" from an FCC exam point, or
was a shut-in. This included Novices and Technicians. Also, if a ham
who obtained a license "by-mail" moved to less than 125 miles from an
FCC exam point, they had 90 days to retest or forfeit their license.

On top of all that, the Extra/Advanced/Class A exams were not routinely
available by mail, and if a ham with a by-mail license wanted one of
those licenses, they not only had to travel to FCC, they also had to
retake the General exams first.

The reason the license was called "Conditional" was that it was issued
conditionally, in FCC's view, and when the conditions changed you had
to retest.

Most of those rules changed about 1953-54:

Novice and Technician became by-mail licenses regardless of distance.

The "Conditional distance was reduced from 125 miles to 75 miles
"air-line"

The requirement to retest if you moved closer was eliminated.

And in February 1953, Conditionals and Generals got the same operating
privileges as Advanceds and Extras.

That state of affairs lasted a decade or so, until 1964-65. Then FCC
changed the "Conditional distance" from 75 miles to 175 miles, and
increased the number of exam points. These changes greatly reduced the
places where a person in CONUS could qualify for a new Conditional
license because of distance.

Those 1964-65 changes to the Conditional were one reason for some of
the opposition to the "incentive licensing" changes that came later in
the 1960s.

Finally in the mid-1970s the FCC phased out the Conditional completely.
They simply stopped offering it, and began renewing all Conditionals as
Generals. This was in the era when FCC not only had many scheduled
exams, but would also send out traveling examiners upon request if a
minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed. Ham exam sessions were
being conducted by FCC at hamfests, conventions, and club meetings, and
the perceived need for the Conditional disappeared.

---

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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

There are. If they have a ham license, are they aiding in fulfilling any
portion of 97.1 ?


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.

Maybe... maybe not. We accept 70% as an arbitrary # that someone 'knows' the
material.

However, as currently structured, that 70% passing grade is "all
encompassing" on the examination. You could miss every single question on
the antenna theory subelement (or regulations subelement, or some other
topic) and still pass the exam and get your ham license.

I proposed in my 1998 NPRM comments that applicants be required to get 70%
or better on each subelement. Thus, you would have to "pass" the subelement
on regulations, "pass" the sub-element on antenna theory, etc.


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.

Neither would I. I think the current testing system is okay, with minor
modications to help ensure applicants actually know the material. In no way
do I want to increase the "difficulty" of the exam (although no doubt some
will claim my ideas would make it more difficult for someone to get a
license, although I counter that someone knowing the material would, in
fact, have no difficulty).

73
KH6HZ

wrote:
Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.

Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...
My read on the Cranky Spanky is twofold: The guy is a control freak
trying to get a "rep" as all-seeing, all-knowing guru; he is trying
to
button-push certain others so that they get "wound up" and say real
nasty things that would allow him to go crying to Google for help to
have the nasties banned forever and ever. :-)
...

Len:

Like I say, I kinda like it when you disagree with me, gives me a chance
to see a different perspective on things. And, logical analysis is
never discouraged here ...

While he is indeed a control freak and would like to bring all others
into agreement with him (wouldn't you just have hated to have been one
of his children!) I think his text relates strongly to his
disappointment and his unwillingness to bring himself into alignment
with reality.

Like I have said in past times, a relatively few strong willed
individuals have been in control and at the helm of amateur radios'
destiny. Now the ship has run ground from having such ill fitting
captains. It could have been much more (amateur radio), and composed of
enough individuals to have been able to survive. This never happened,
others constantly warned them along the way. And, they were especially
warned of the danger of keeping amateur radio a "good ole' boys club"
and using morse as a limiting factor in allowing new licensees.

So, mankind went on and invented the internet. Now the internet
overflows the world and has become TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT, an example is
this newsgroup right here. And, the internets' appetite is
ever-increasing hungry for bandwidth--something amateur radio just has
laying around.

The rest is my psychic prediction--the internet will consume amateur
radios' bandwidth--end of story.

Warmest regards,
JS

wrote:

...
All them old extras are a law unto themselves.
...

Len:

Those OTs' lied, deceived and lead-astray new licensees. Worse, they
brain washed 'em into the good ole boys club.

Now, they sit and watch the whole darn thing falling apart. Since the
old lies and deception used to work so well in the past, they are slow
to give up the old methods which no longer work. They are at a loss,
they are helpless, they are attempting to re-group.

However, with the internet, like the borg, (or ohms law--I guess!
grin) resistance if futile ...

.... end of story.

Regards,
JS

wrote:

On Jan 24, 5:56�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:� ...

� �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,
� �LALen:
Like with Hemingway, I cannot take the credit for that, you old devil.

He simply has a "hard on" for you which he cannot satisfy, you tease!
chuckling

My read on the Cranky Spanky is twofold: The guy is a control freak
trying to get a "rep" as all-seeing, all-knowing guru; he is trying
to
button-push certain others so that they get "wound up" and say real
nasty things that would allow him to go crying to Google for help to
have the nasties banned forever and ever. :-)

Both of those items above would accomplish what he seeks,
RECOGNITION. A side benefit would be "respect."

Yanno, there is some "respect" for someone who works SO
DOGGEDLY at the "correction" game. Before work, after work,
almost any time free. It's like he got NO other thing in mind. :-)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder. He got, not me. :-)

It isn't difficult to see your errors or to correct them. They are
manifold. You yourself attempted to come into an amateur radio
newsgroup and set yourself up as, what did you call it--an all
seeing-all knowing guru?--on amateur radio matters. You did this
despite the fact that you aren't a licensed radio amateur, just a
sidewalk superintendent, a Major Hoople. What did you seek? Was it
recognition or respect? If so, I'll bet you're dreadfully disappointed.
The ultimate in an individual who seeks to control something is the guy
who is not in the least involved in the endeavor which he seeks to control.


Some of these poor dumm****s never did the BBS thing in a large
urban area before Internet. They've missed a HEAP of such
compulsive-obsessive disordered minds on the loose, frazzling
the nerves of sysops all over.

It doesn't matter. We've been exposed to you here for a decade. We've
missed nothing.

Was easy to "moderate" them by
just Locking Them Out. :-) I've seen ten kinds of examples of
control-freaks, button-pushers, disordered minds for every one
who has ever been in here. They don't know that they've been
replied-to (sometimes) with the SAME thing they do to others!

....and you still don't get it.

Utterly fascinating to see both. :-)

If you could see yourself as others see you...

All the best,
LA

Dave K8MN