libel and VE Testing
 

wrote:

Not at all. You're the one who claims Steve "lied".

because he did

No, he didn't. You may not agree with his statement, but just because you
disagree with it doesn't mean he "lied". Factually, Steve's statement is
correct. There are 19 licensed amateurs in Chasell, MI.


the lie is asserting that the number of chassell hams is relavant to
to the question

The number of area hams *is* pertinent to the question. If you live in a low
population-density area, then the likelihood of having an adequate number of
hams who are Extra-class VEs is likewise low, and thus, the number of
possible test sessions low as well.

Compare this to a high population area, such as Boston:

http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/examsear...02111&dist=100

or NYC:

http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/examsear...10001&dist=100

which have 83 and 133 test sessions, respectively, scheduled in the near
future.


but indeed how could his refusaul to schedule a testing for his own
personal affect his license? you are lying a big one there

Your statements clearly indicated that you were denied a test session
locally because the VEs in the area are "procoders" -- specifically in
Message-ID:

Being denied a test session because you're a codeless tech would be a
serious offense and could result in a VE teams credentials being revolked.

However, as I (and many others) suspect, you were not denied access to a
test session because the teams consisted of "procoders", but instead because
the VE team probably thinks you are an utter retard, or you made some type
of "demand", such as a special examination session on Feb 23rd, when the VE
team already had a test session scheduled for April 14th.


he is welcome to explain why refused a request from myself and others
to do what was promised by him when he changed the number of test
session the club sponered team would hold to 2 per year and as many as
might be needed

Refer to what the first letter in the term VE stands for. Volunteer. If you
asked for a special examination session, VE teams are in no way obligated to
hold special test sessions for you, especially when they already have a
session scheduled in a mere 6 weeks.

However, in typical Morkie Perpetual Victim fashion, you whine, stomp your
feet, and cry "i discriminalgated agist by porcodrs!!!!"


If you feel there is adequate demand for more than 2 test sessions per year
in Chasell, then you're welcome to take the requisite examinations, obtain
VE certifications, and form your own VE team. However, if you do that, I
suspect you'll be in here whining that "nobody showed up 'cuz we're no-code
Extras".


My wife would also be delighteted to discuss it with him since it
mean't she is still a tech since both of us could risk traveling to
Milwakeee or anyplace else for session this time of year

A quick search yields a test session which was held yesterday under 100
miles from your home, by the Hiawatha ARA. What was wrong with that one? Are
they all Procoders too? Otherwise it looks like you'll have to wait until
CCRAA has their next test session on April 14th.

VE Testing Rules
 

On Mar 10, 9:59 pm, wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:02 pm, "
wrote:



I was pleased with my local VE team's performance (all four,
not just three) and congratulated them after the testing was
over. [I observed them while they were observing me and the
applicant group]

They were ARRL VEs, weren't they?

However, that is not extendable to "all" VEs
nor all those involved in this newsgroup.

Why not?

Most of the statements
in this thread about VEs are just using it as a springboard to
talk trash to other old "enemies." :-(

Considering the number of statements you make to
rrap, Len, it seems you are projecting your motivations on others.

In an extreme example, amateur radio station N2EY has to
bring up the 1998 ARRLweb story of two FOUR-YEAR-OLDS
who "passed" a Technician and Novice class written exam
(respectively) as well as the required low-rate morse code
test. An accompanying picture in the web story shows one
of the VEs, of kindly grandfatherly mien, with arms around
both of them. Obvious one-hankie kind of "feel-good" story
that is no stranger to journalistic media everywhere.

You left out the most important parts of that
story, Len.

First off, the 4-1/2-year-olds in question were from families composed
almost entirely of radio amateurs, and were part of a an educational
environment that included amateur radio as an integral part of the
curriculum. Both could read and write well above age level.

Second, the written tests they passed were the old Novice and Tech
elements.

Third, there has never been any objective evidence presented that the
VE session in question was compromised in any way.

Fourth, your response to that story was to propose, in Reply Comments
to FCC, that there be a new mandatory age requirement of *14* years
for any class of amateur radio license.

Fifth, you have not been able to produce a single example of problems
to the US Amateur Radio Service caused by a lack of an age
requirement. Amateurs have been licensed by the US Government since
1912, yet in all those 85 years you cannot name even one actual
problem caused by the licensing of people under the age of 14. Not
one.

Four year olds capable of responsible cognition of the
written-English test material?

Irrelevant, Len. "Responsible cognition" is not a requirement of the
license test.

Ask any working teacher
of K to 3 classes if any of their students have either
cognition or sense of responsibility about such test
material. The end result will be an almost unamous
NO, the won't. I've asked three that I know, plus one
who was then a grade 4 teacher but later moved up to
middle-school level when I had met him.

Doesn't matter.

The FCC has been using multiple-choice written
exams for all amateur written elements for more
than 40 years. The question pools have been
publicly available for more than 20 years.

FCC does not require that a prospective amateur demonstrate
understanding of the material, nor "cognition", nor a sense of
responsibility. Nor is it necessary to get 100% correct on the test,
or even 80%.

All FCC requires is that the prospective amateur get at least the
required number of questions correct on the written test, without
cheating. Nothing more. Doesn't matter to FCC if the prospective ham
has a Ph.D in EE and a stack of patents, or is in the first grade.
Doesn't matter to FCC if the prospective ham can explain each question
and answer in exquisite detail, with exact formulas and calculations,
or if the correct answer came from random guessing, or rote
memorization.

All that matters to FCC is that the prospective amateur got at least
the minimum required number of correct answers, without cheating.

When you allegedly asked those teachers, did you
happen to mention that:

1) The test materials were available for study, so the children would
have seen them before the test?

2) The questions were multiple choice, one out of four?

3) That as long as there was no cheating, any method of getting the
right answer was OK?

4) That a passing grade was 74%, regardless of how much was actually
understood?

I don't think so.

What is
rather obvious is that there was some "mentoring"
during the actual test, not allowed nowadays (nor in
1998 according to all the law-abiding whosis in here).

No, that's not obvious at all. You are claiming that the VE session
was compromised. That's a serious charge.

You were not there, Len, and you don't know any of the people
involved.

I have seen bright three-year-olds reading well above their age level.
Whether they understood what they read is besides the point.

Ah, but the least little hint of "fraud" involved evoked a
storm of PROTEST from the Believers of the League,
angry denunciations of anyone who would DARE say
nasty of their beloved ARRL.

Claims of fraud without any objective evidence deserve to be denounced
as false.

I wonder if the VEs who handled your testing knew that you accused
other VEs of fraud back in 2002?
Or that you accused the ARRL VEC of hypocrisy at the same time?

All without any evidence at all.


On an almost constant irregular basis, amateur station
N2EY has to bring this tidbit out in the open...and has
for 8 years. It gets inserted into threads which don't
involve VEs or testing as the general subject. Some in
here burn and burn inside for the longest time...perhaps
of unrequited spite that must have retribution.

The only spite is *yours*, Len.





Let's take a realistic look at Volunteer Examiners. Are all
VEs "saints?" No. They are human beings. Are they
"exceptional" human beings? Perhaps, but exceptional in
that they volunteer their time to proctor testing. Volunteerism
happens in MANY different human endeavors, not just
amateur radio. Do VEs need exceptional training to perform
their tasks? No. All it requires is attention to paperwork,
using the correct template to score test sheets, filling out
the correct blanks on forms, keeping the test papers for an
individual in order, double-checking each (in a team) other's
work, making sure a test session's paper packet gets sent
quickly to a VEC center for final processing (for big VECs)
or direct to the FCC (for small VECs). Part of a VE team's
task is to simply observe applicants, make sure they do not
cheat, make sure they behave during a session, check their
identity by other documents.

They must also hold the required class of amateur radio license.



Is the example of one VE team applicable to the entire VEC?
No.

Yet you accuse some VEs of fraud and hypocrisy.

Here are links to the actual postings:

Len's reply comments - 16 pages page 13 of 16

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...or_pdf=pdf&id_...

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3

ARRL Letter:

http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/98/980320/

Hans pointer:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r.../msg/2c6d67f88...

http://tinyurl.com/y2er8x

Len's rejoinder:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r.../msg/fa1332a10...

http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr

Len accusing fraud:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r.../msg/f91dda07a...

Jim, N2EY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, get over yourself. The story presented in QST is preposterous.
Only you believed it.

Morkie and VE Testing
 

wrote:

Dee was an unwitting accomplice in Robesin's plan. She could have
snipped that part out if she had read it and understood what she was
reading.

More rubbish.

Since there are several states which allow same-sex marriages, it is not
outside the realm of possibility that Mark's 'wife' is male.

I also think that the majority of the legitimately signed participants here
could care less one way or the other if Mark's wife is male, female, or a
holstein cow.

libel and VE Testing
 

On Mar 11, 4:52 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I spuse I confused stave when I said Local as oposed to
houghton/hancock area

and mike just followed suit

Not at all. You're the one who claims Steve "lied".

Steve made a factual statement, as did I. There are 19 licensed amateurs in
Chasell. That is not a "lie". Anyone can go to QRZ and see for themselves

How many licensed amateurs are in Hermann's PO Box? Where should they
be?

libel and VE Testing
 

wrote:

becuase they read Steve posts and concluded he was total nut job for
threatening to murder as he did over code testing

that was the response of he FBI as well

An individual's mental state plays no role when local officials investigate
whether or not a crime has been committed. For example, you don't get a free
pass from commiting armed robbery simply because your IQ is under 80.

In fact, if anything, they are *more* likely to do "something" (even if it
involves calling the person on the phone and telling them to 'back off') if
they suspect the individual is of dubious mental abilities.


I suspect what "really" happened is both the local DA and the 'FBI' both
thought the person filing the complaint was a 'total nut job' and opted to
tell you to go away.

Morkie and VE Testing
 

On Mar 11, 4:55 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of irate applicants posing a threat to
the Volunteer Examiners.

I stand corrected.

Wouldn't that be a good reason for VEs to "pack heat"?

The RF Commando's will deal with any such issues!

VE Testing Rules
 

wrote:

Perhaps this was the same VE team that tested the 4 1/2 year old?

I doubt it.

Yes, I realize that. Unfortunately there is no emoticon for
"tongue-in-cheek".


His proposed "cure" for that "problem" was to
propose that no one under the age of 14 years
be allowed to earn a US amateur radio license.

Why would one suggest a "cure" for a non-existant "problem"?


As for "bitter old geezers", there's never been any
sort of age requirement, maximum or minimum, for
any class of US amateur radio license.

However, should there be periodic retesting, such as with driver's licenses?
It would be a shame, for instance, if a geezer's amplifer malfunctioned,
arc'd over to his oxygen bottle, and an explosion resulted.


Ex-KG6IRO, who lived less than 25 miles from AF6AY
and was recently sentenced to seven years in prison
for radio-related crimes, is well past retirement age.
So is the unlicensed person in Florida (Flippo?) who
is still behind bars IIRC.

Seems to happen a lot, unfortunately.

Just think how embittered you would be if you had to wait 80 years to get
your ham ticket.

VE Testing Rules
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 10, 8:32 pm, "Dean M" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Mar 10, 11:29 am, "Dean M" wrote:

How's that report on me going. Should be at least 500 words double
spaced

The report was completed back when I said I made it.

I so doubt that. You're all bluster like your trainer

I so don't care. But here's an interesting little factoid so that
you'll sleep better at night:

You asked for my State's Attorney General and I gave his info to you,
but I had merely reported you to your ISP.


Oh my gosh gee whiz there Bry You stated previously that you reported this
to the Ohio AG. Now you back pedal and state you reported to my ISP. Which
one is the truth there Bry? Taking lessions from Marcus Stupideous I C.

No problem, My ISP, if indeeed I am posting from them gave you comlaint the
same weight and thoght as I imagine the Ohio AG did NONE!!!! ha ha he he

You make me raff


You jump to conclusions then harass me when the AG office doesn't
check on you. What an idiot.

How can you be harrassed in a public forum there BRY? No one forces you to
read anything, no one forces you you to reply. Taking lessons from thae
ither trained monkey Marcus Idiotous I C

Feel free to report me to the FCC as well there Bry. I am sure they'll give
you the same consideration as the others

You very funny man, you make me raff or on this case ralph

Ta ta Turtle man give my regards to the rest of the Bizzaro people

Hey Bry could be a new Batman villian... Bluster Man a villian who
attempts to defaet his enemies with lies, inneuendo and various blustery
phrases

Maybe you should go back to Michigan there Bry, I am sure Marcus Deviatous
would puit you up

It's been fun Have a week

Morkie and VE Testing
 

On Mar 11, 9:16 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
Dee was an unwitting accomplice in Robesin's plan. She could have
snipped that part out if she had read it and understood what she was
reading.

More rubbish.

Since there are several states which allow same-sex marriages, it is not
outside the realm of possibility that Mark's 'wife' is male.

Is Michigan one of those states? You need to check your facts before
running your mouth.

I also think that the majority of the legitimately signed participants here
could care less one way or the other if Mark's wife is male, female, or a
holstein cow.

Robesin makes other peoples wives the center of attention.

VE Testing Rules
 

On Mar 11, 9:35 am, "Dean M" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 10, 8:32 pm, "Dean M" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 10, 11:29 am, "Dean M" wrote:

How's that report on me going. Should be at least 500 words double
spaced

The report was completed back when I said I made it.

I so doubt that. You're all bluster like your trainer

I so don't care. But here's an interesting little factoid so that
you'll sleep better at night:

You asked for my State's Attorney General and I gave his info to you,
but I had merely reported you to your ISP.

Oh my gosh gee whiz there Bry You stated previously that you reported this
to the Ohio AG.

No. You jumped to a conclusion because you're a paranoid little
freak. I let you work under a false assumption all this time.

Now you back pedal and state you reported to my ISP. Which
one is the truth there Bry? Taking lessions from Marcus Stupideous I C.

No backpedalling. I'm just not responsible for how your freaky little
mind works.

No problem, My ISP, if indeeed I am posting from them gave you comlaint the
same weight and thoght as I imagine the Ohio AG did NONE!!!! ha ha he he

I never contacted the AG's office. You made that assumption up all by
yourself.

You make me raff

You make yourself riff and raff.

You jump to conclusions then harass me when the AG office doesn't
check on you. What an idiot.

How can you be harrassed in a public forum there BRY? No one forces you to
read anything, no one forces you you to reply. Taking lessons from thae
ither trained monkey Marcus Idiotous I C

You you make all kinds of assumptions. Too bad for you.

Feel free to report me to the FCC as well there Bry. I am sure they'll give
you the same consideration as the others

Nah. I'll wait for you to really screw up, then... "Dialing..."

You very funny man, you make me raff or on this case ralph

So now you're claiming to be Riff-Ralph? How appropriate.

Ta ta Turtle man give my regards to the rest of the Bizzaro people

Hey Bry could be a new Batman villian... Bluster Man a villian who
attempts to defaet his enemies with lies, inneuendo and various blustery
phrases

Maybe you should go back to Michigan there Bry, I am sure Marcus Deviatous
would puit you up

It's been fun Have a week

Sayonara Mr. Riff-Ralph.