|
Morkie and VE Testing
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 10, 11:31 am, "Dean M" wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message link.net... wrote: On Mar 10, 12:15 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: [snip] So less than two dozen ( 24) amateurs aren't enough to make up a VE team? That IS news to me. If the numbers presented earlier were correct, it would not matter if they were all VEs. They could not have tested Mark since only one of them held a license class higher than General. To conduct a General license exam, they must hold either an Advanced or Extra license. Dee is a cheerleader for Morse Code and the ARRL. That's known as "bias." My support of Morse code has no bearing on the number of VEs in Mark's area who are eligible to administer the General exam. Dee, N8UZE Fair enough. I was just disgusted by your legitimizing Robesin's sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That is all. I sometimes get the feeling that you're about as peculiarly wired as Mark. Dave K8MN If you notice, when a certain someone refers to a 2x4 across the head and causing someone to have to pick their teeth off the floor, good Ol Bry is just as silent. I saw Dean publish that. I was not silent. No actually you proved the phrase, if it not for the Internet no one would no you're mental untable..but you did and there you are Actually when your trainer, that elderly person from the left coast first published it (many many time I might add), you were silent. When he recently reposted one of the phrases, you replied in what can be construded as an amused agreeable post. Your silence when he has posted these threats many times means you condone and therefore legitimize his threats. Seems you have this double standard :( Guess that means he's legitimizing the violence threatened against others. Who were you threatening? I threaten no one. What you read into a post is beyond any control other than yours. I would bet you would consider your own shadow as a threat When you watch TV, do you take all the news items as personal threats? I could see how you would. I was just retyping previous phrases that you already have approved of. Somehow, I don't think you are sincere in your beliefs, but that's OK, that's YOU Just remember Bry Lithium is not just for batteries. Try it, you might like it |
Morkie and VE Testing
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 10, 12:15 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: [snip] So less than two dozen ( 24) amateurs aren't enough to make up a VE team? That IS news to me. If the numbers presented earlier were correct, it would not matter if they were all VEs. They could not have tested Mark since only one of them held a license class higher than General. To conduct a General license exam, they must hold either an Advanced or Extra license. Dee is a cheerleader for Morse Code and the ARRL. That's known as "bias." My support of Morse code has no bearing on the number of VEs in Mark's area who are eligible to administer the General exam. Dee, N8UZE Fair enough. I was just disgusted by your legitimizing Robesin's sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That is all. I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. Dee, N8UZE |
Morkie and VE Testing
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 10, 12:04 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message ps.com... On Mar 9, 7:32 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message You're shacked up with one of them, but in any case he's only a Technician and ineligible to test you anyway. Now we get to the root of the matter. Unless the rules have changed, a VE (with the exception of Extras) must have a license class higher than the exams they administer. Thus the General class licensee can only administer Tech class exams. To get above Tech, he would most likely have to drive somewhere else. The Advanced and Extras can administer Tech & General Exams. The Extras can administer Tech, General, and Extra exams. If your data is correct on the number of licensees in the area, they could NOT have tested him for General unless there were also some Advanced class licensees around who were VEs. So it would seem that he asked for the impossible. No wonder they would not schedule an exam for him. Dee, N8UZE- Dee, why do you even validate Robesin's remarks with a legitimate reply? He made an error that needed correcting (i.e. what tests Generals could give). He made other errors and accusations, i.e., "You're shacked up with one of them, but in any case he's only a Technician and ineligible to test you anyway." Why did you legitimize his inuendo and accusations with your remarks? Otherwise some readers might have ended up acting on this incorrect information and been disappointed. Dee, N8UZE- Dee, how would we have "acted" on incorrect information? which readers? There is always the potential for that. Some General who reads this group might have thought he could give General tests. The paperwork would have bounced and then there would be a very irate Technician. Such would be grossly unfair to the that applicant. Or a Technician might have been led to believe that a General could administer the General test and become hostile when the General VE refused. In today's world, these things can even lead to violence. Dee, N8UZE |
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 10, 8:21?am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
/So I'll say "THANK YOU" to Dee, and all VEs who help /with the licensing process. And all who have done so /for more than 20 years, since the FCC abdicated the /responsibility of testing for amateur radio licenses. You're welcome. Jim VE-ARRL ($14) VE-GLAARG ($4) Jim, this whole thread is NOT really about Volunteer Examiners. It's just a place to vent spleens about OLD ARGUMENTS from olde-tymers who are still ****ed off about having their self- righteous statements be the "law" of this (newsgroup) territory. 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] However, that is not extendable to "all" VEs nor all those involved in this newsgroup. Most of the statements in this thread about VEs are just using it as a springboard to talk trash to other old "enemies." :-( In other words, "politics" as usual...which you may be familiar with...grin :-) 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. Four year olds capable of responsible cognition of the written-English test material? 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. 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). 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. 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 other "subject" is "Robesin," a soubriquet bestowed on one Steven James Robeson, licensee K4YZ - once K4CAP - then back to K4YZ. In all his 8-year-long claims of "18 years active military service in the USMC" he has never offered nor put on any public view location any documented evidence of such service. Yet this "Robesin" has constantly hurled a stream of invective and personal abuse against anyone disagreeing with him, even to a minor degree. That has been going on for at least eight years in here, him turning the newsgroup into some personal battlefield where he thinks he is vanquishing his foes. "Robesin" claims to be a VE also, yet hasn't shown us any documentation of that. Brian Burke, USAF veteran and licensee N0IMD, has been unfairly treated to invective and personal abuse by this "Robesin" and many other anonymous sociopaths in here. His complaints are direct and justified...by all the archives of this newsgroup. 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. Is the example of one VE team applicable to the entire VEC? No. None in here have presented any current time test session operations except Dee Flint and a couple of anonymous pseudonym individuals. All the rest is either blanket cheering and rah-rah ambiguous phrasing (that looks just like political spin operating on emotions) or the bringing to life of very dead-horse beating from years in the past. Did the FCC do a "bad thing" on the "abdication" of government run radio operator testing? No and yes...it isn't a black and white issue. The FCC simply privatized the license testing process. The FCC has privatized many other tasks, notably frequency coordination among several other radio services, done by government and industry groups IN those radio service environments. The FCC was never chartered as an academic institution and "THE TEST" was never a certificate of either knowledge or experience in radio, nor of any kind of expertise. That was true of the FCC's predecessors all the way back to 1912. The FCC uses licensing as a tool of civil radio regulation, nothing more than keeping information on the type and kind of RF emitters, and where they are located, what particular activity they are involved in, and so forth. Being granted a license is NOT a diploma, NOT a degree, NOT a prize or notable achievement of mankind. It is simply recognition of being granted permission to emit a certain kind of RF energy as regulated by law using allocated modes and frequencies and at what maximum RF power levels and subject to all other regulations of that particular radio service. We could sum that up in a single word...POLITICS. As far as I know you are the only one in here who has been really involved with THAT, eh? :-) 73, AF6AY |
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 10, 7:41?am, wrote:
On Mar 10, 10:28 am, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote As if there's something wrong with being in favor of Morse Code - not the test, the mode itself. The TEST. We can't really argue with amateur radio station KH6HZ about morse code. To that station the use-availability-testing is all together in one melange of what that station calls "amateur radio." Pretty much. A textbook example of how a large segment of the "No Code Agenda" isn't about simply removing the code test, but instead is interested in destroying the mode itself, due to some irrational hatred of the mode of operation. The TEST. Tsk. KH6HZ is simply emitting SPITE from his high-power emotional amplifier. Things get distorted at such over-driving. The funny part about Mark's rant is even if there were an adequate number of Extra-class operators around to give him a test, it is not outside the realm of possibility that those Extras might have been licensed after 2000, and could have only passed the fairly trivial 5wpm code examination to obtain their Extra-class license. Only Pro-Code Test Advocated trivialize the 5WPM Exam. And exactly how does the 5WPM Exam disqualify them from being a VE? That must be a fact known only to Hawaii-resident radio amateurs. It isn't recognized by the FCC. I am reminded of someone who accused certain VEs of "fraud" simply because they presided over the license testing of a young amateur, I seem to recall that too. And, if I remember correctly, the accuser wasn't even a licensed amateur at the time of the accusation. I seem to recall a world famous DXer working out of band Frenchmen on 6 meters. I seem to recall an RF Commando telling others how to live their amateur lives, all the while faking up a bunch of clubs and using an out of CONUS PO Box to glom up a whole bunch of DX callsigns. I doubt we are "allowed" to mention that. It is "against" the good-ole-boy club of code-tested extras in here. :-) Fraud is fraud, whether it is outright, legally-defined fraud or just "bad amateur practice." Those that are caught in either just don't want to admit their guilt. So I'll say "THANK YOU" to Dee, and all VEs who help with the licensing process. Most definitely. I've been to 4 VE sessions in my lifetime, and that was enough for me. How many COLEM exams? At least one...for his GMDSS radio operator license so that he can be a "lecturer at a Massachusetts university (or whatever)." I've only been to two exam sessions for radio operator licensing in my life. Once in 1956 at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, once in 2007 at an ARRL/VEC-run test site at the location of one station in the Los Angeles Auxiliary Communications Service. I still regard the 1956 First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator license exam (passed on the first try) as being the toughest. Others' mileage may vary. :-) 73, AF6AY |
libel and VE Testing
wrote:
whoe ever it was lied about the hams of in area i n number How, exactly? A quick search of Chassel, MI shows 19 licensed amateurs, 1 of which you live with. What are your numbers and how did you arrive at them? there are 18 ves that particpate in the CCARS VE team What are their callsigns? you know who is and isn't pro code when you have never met them? Since you've met them, you can provide their callsigns, right? I'd like to drop them an email to participate in this thread, so we can have their side of the story. |
libel and VE Testing
wrote:
A quick search of Chassel, MI shows 19 licensed amateurs, 1 of which you live with. so? You can't claim someone "lied" simply because their figures are different. You could also claim that there are 600K+ licensed amateurs in your "area", depending on how large of an "area" you want to use. that is not the region from which the VE';s of the area are drawn It is safe to say that in areas with low population density, there will be an equally low number of licensed amateurs. Of those licensed amateurs, only 1/6th of them are likely to be Extra-class operators. What are their callsigns? why so you can harrass thme further Translation: I don't want to say 'cuz then they'd refute my claims I was discriminated against, and I can't be a victim any longer. |
Morkie and VE Testing
"Dee Flint" wrote:
In today's world, these things can even lead to violence. Oh geeze. Now you've done it. You've gone and threatened Morkie's life. |
Morkie and VE Testing
"KH6HZ" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote: In today's world, these things can even lead to violence. Oh geeze. Now you've done it. You've gone and threatened Morkie's life. I was thinking more along the lines of irate applicants posing a threat to the Volunteer Examiners. Dee, N8UZE |
Morkie and VE Testing
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 9, 10:31 pm, "Mandy" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: Steve merely voiced the findings and added to them. Robesin adds nothing to the discussion except sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. But..but...it is OK for Mark to outright state that Steve's wife should have aborted their daughter? Doesn't a woman have the right to choose? Yes, the WOMAN has the right to chose. Not some socially dysfunctional nitwit from northern Michigan, who, in my opinion, should have been flushed from the womb. The rest of your drivel is not worth answering. snip |
VE Testing Rules
Dee, N8UZE- Dee, why do you even validate Robesin's remarks with a legitimate reply? Mr. Cheese: What's wrong with N8UZE's response? She legitimizes Robesin's inuendo remarks and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That's a real stretch. You've been around poor Mark far too long. |
Morkie and VE Testing
"Dave Heil" wrote in message link.net... wrote: On Mar 10, 12:15 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: [snip] So less than two dozen ( 24) amateurs aren't enough to make up a VE team? That IS news to me. If the numbers presented earlier were correct, it would not matter if they were all VEs. They could not have tested Mark since only one of them held a license class higher than General. To conduct a General license exam, they must hold either an Advanced or Extra license. Dee is a cheerleader for Morse Code and the ARRL. That's known as "bias." My support of Morse code has no bearing on the number of VEs in Mark's area who are eligible to administer the General exam. Dee, N8UZE Fair enough. I was just disgusted by your legitimizing Robesin's sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That is all. I sometimes get the feeling that you're about as peculiarly wired as Mark. Dave K8MN (ya gotta admit. that there is funny...) |
libel and VE Testing
wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:17:44 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote: In today's world, these things can even lead to violence. Oh geeze. Now you've done it. You've gone and threatened Morkie's life. why are you such a lying sack of **** Mike? Why are you, Mark? |
Morkie and VE Testing
On Mar 10, 6:12 pm, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 9, 10:31 pm, "Mandy" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: Steve merely voiced the findings and added to them. Robesin adds nothing to the discussion except sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. But..but...it is OK for Mark to outright state that Steve's wife should have aborted their daughter? Doesn't a woman have the right to choose? Yes, the WOMAN has the right to chose. Not some socially dysfunctional nitwit from northern Michigan, who, in my opinion, should have been flushed from the womb. The rest of your drivel is not worth answering. Sounds like Mamma Cass got Phat. |
libel and VE Testing
wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... On Mar 10, 12:15 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: [snip] So less than two dozen ( 24) amateurs aren't enough to make up a VE team? That IS news to me. If the numbers presented earlier were correct, it would not matter if they were all VEs. They could not have tested Mark since only one of them held a license class higher than General. To conduct a General license exam, they must hold either an Advanced or Extra license. Dee is a cheerleader for Morse Code and the ARRL. That's known as "bias." My support of Morse code has no bearing on the number of VEs in Mark's area who are eligible to administer the General exam. Dee, N8UZE Fair enough. I was just disgusted by your legitimizing Robesin's sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That is all. I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. you letgitmize it when you respond to it when you repaet Steve Name calling titles In that case, both you AND "cheese" are legitimizing the name calling. You sick, twisted freak. |
Morkie and VE Testing
On Mar 10, 1:03 pm, "Dean M" wrote:
Just remember Bry Lithium is not just for batteries. Try it, you might like it- It makes a pretty good bearing grease. I like it. |
Morkie and VE Testing
On Mar 10, 1:40 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 10, 12:15 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: [snip] So less than two dozen ( 24) amateurs aren't enough to make up a VE team? That IS news to me. If the numbers presented earlier were correct, it would not matter if they were all VEs. They could not have tested Mark since only one of them held a license class higher than General. To conduct a General license exam, they must hold either an Advanced or Extra license. Dee is a cheerleader for Morse Code and the ARRL. That's known as "bias." My support of Morse code has no bearing on the number of VEs in Mark's area who are eligible to administer the General exam. Dee, N8UZE Fair enough. I was just disgusted by your legitimizing Robesin's sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That is all. I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. Dee, N8UZE So what do you know of Mark's wife? |
libel and VE Testing
On Mar 10, 1:57 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:40:06 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... On Mar 10, 12:15 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... On Mar 9, 9:53 pm, "Mork" Dork@anon wrote: [snip] So less than two dozen ( 24) amateurs aren't enough to make up a VE team? That IS news to me. If the numbers presented earlier were correct, it would not matter if they were all VEs. They could not have tested Mark since only one of them held a license class higher than General. To conduct a General license exam, they must hold either an Advanced or Extra license. Dee is a cheerleader for Morse Code and the ARRL. That's known as "bias." My support of Morse code has no bearing on the number of VEs in Mark's area who are eligible to administer the General exam. Dee, N8UZE Fair enough. I was just disgusted by your legitimizing Robesin's sexual inuendo and accusations that Mark's wife is a man. That is all. I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. you letgitmize it when you respond to it when you repaet Steve Name calling titles Correct. |
VE Testing Rules
diatribe by Len snipped All Flatulence 6 All Year |
VE Testing Rules
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. Do you think I have super-human powers from the planet Krypton to have you picked up with a single phone call just on my say so??? "Dialing...." Hi, hi! What a pair of idiots you are. Bry..you are the tool's tool Dean Anchors Away Fair wind and following seas and all that, embarassing Son of DOS |
libel and VE Testing
On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote: whoe ever it was lied about the hams of in area i n number How, exactly? A quick search of Chassel, MI shows 19 licensed amateurs, 1 of which you live with. A quick search of one Jeff Hermann's PO Box used to show what? C'mon Mad Dog Mike, you of all people should know that you don't have to reside in Chassel, MI to be a VE there. |
VE Testing Rules
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 Do you think I have super-human powers from the planet Krypton to have you picked up with a single phone call just on my say so??? I guess you answered that Actually I see you as a Bizzaro planet inhabitant "Dialing...." Hi, hi! What a pair of idiots you are. Bry..you are the tool's tool Dean Anchors Away Fair wind and following seas and all that, embarassing Son of DOS And here I thought you were so morally against name calling??!! Daughter of Satan..indeed What a trained little monkey you really are. Acn you do any other tricks there Bry?? |
Morkie and VE Testing
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 10, 1:03 pm, "Dean M" wrote: Just remember Bry Lithium is not just for batteries. Try it, you might like it- It makes a pretty good bearing grease. I like it. Mark likes it, too. He finds it much better than K-Y. |
Morkie and VE Testing
On Mar 10, 1:43 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 10, 12:04 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 9, 7:32 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message You're shacked up with one of them, but in any case he's only a Technician and ineligible to test you anyway. Now we get to the root of the matter. Unless the rules have changed, a VE (with the exception of Extras) must have a license class higher than the exams they administer. Thus the General class licensee can only administer Tech class exams. To get above Tech, he would most likely have to drive somewhere else. The Advanced and Extras can administer Tech & General Exams. The Extras can administer Tech, General, and Extra exams. If your data is correct on the number of licensees in the area, they could NOT have tested him for General unless there were also some Advanced class licensees around who were VEs. So it would seem that he asked for the impossible. No wonder they would not schedule an exam for him. Dee, N8UZE- Dee, why do you even validate Robesin's remarks with a legitimate reply? He made an error that needed correcting (i.e. what tests Generals could give). He made other errors and accusations, i.e., "You're shacked up with one of them, but in any case he's only a Technician and ineligible to test you anyway." Why did you legitimize his inuendo and accusations with your remarks? Otherwise some readers might have ended up acting on this incorrect information and been disappointed. Dee, N8UZE- Dee, how would we have "acted" on incorrect information? which readers? There is always the potential for that. Some General who reads this group might have thought he could give General tests. The paperwork would have bounced and then there would be a very irate Technician. Such would be grossly unfair to the that applicant. So do you think all hams are stupid, or just the ones that read RRAP? Or a Technician might have been led to believe that a General could administer the General test and become hostile when the General VE refused. All this hostility! Where does it come from? In today's world, these things can even lead to violence. Dee, N8UZE That's when you call in the RF Commandos. |
libeling and VE testing
On Mar 10, 12:55 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:32:34 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message roups.com... Now we get to the root of the matter. Unless the rules have changed, a VE (with the exception of Extras) must have a license class higher than the exams they administer. Thus the General class licensee can only administer Tech class exams. To get above Tech, he would most likely have to drive somewhere else. the root of that matter is that steve is skewing the facts and lying about the nu mber of ham in the this areahttp://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ Lets give Robesin the benefit of the doubt. There might be plenty of local hams using Jeff Hermann's PO Box in Hawaii. |
libel and VE Testing
I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. Dee, N8UZE So what do you know of Mark's wife? BTW if you would since she does not read my posts do tell her that she Dee is onw my wife list of folks she will not speak on on air or qsl although I still would but only in slam bang thank you for the contact sort of way Oh, the laughter. I'll bet THAT will really upset Dee. |
VE Testing Rules
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...t=6006041 560 or: http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3 ARRL Letter: http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/98/980320/ Hans pointer: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/y2er8x Len's rejoinder: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr Len accusing fraud: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en Jim, N2EY |
Morkie and VE Testing
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 10, 1:40 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] So what do you know of Mark's wife? I've never commented on Mark's wife and have no interest in the subject. Dee, N8UZE |
libel and VE Testing
"Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote in message ... I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. Dee, N8UZE So what do you know of Mark's wife? BTW if you would since she does not read my posts do tell her that she Dee is onw my wife list of folks she will not speak on on air or qsl although I still would but only in slam bang thank you for the contact sort of way Oh, the laughter. I'll bet THAT will really upset Dee. Doesn't matter to me. Although it seems rather strange since I have said nothing about his wife and very little about him. Dee, N8UZE |
libel and VE Testing
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: whoe ever it was lied about the hams of in area i n number How, exactly? A quick search of Chassel, MI shows 19 licensed amateurs, 1 of which you live with. A quick search of one Jeff Hermann's PO Box used to show what? C'mon Mad Dog Mike, you of all people should know that you don't have to reside in Chassel, MI to be a VE there. And that has what to do with the VE's that live in the area? I guess Mark and you "expect" some of us to drive long distances just to please Mark? I don't think so. |
VE Testing Rules
wrote in message ... On 10 Mar 2007 17:59:15 -0800, 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? according the FCC it was the ARRL VEC http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/Appl...applID=3873254 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. you have not been reading the thread 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. true but still But still. My money says the four year olds can author a much better sentence than Mark. -- do u hav anyting cognet two say? |
libel and VE Testing
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote in message ... I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data. Dee, N8UZE So what do you know of Mark's wife? BTW if you would since she does not read my posts do tell her that she Dee is onw my wife list of folks she will not speak on on air or qsl although I still would but only in slam bang thank you for the contact sort of way Oh, the laughter. I'll bet THAT will really upset Dee. Doesn't matter to me. Although it seems rather strange since I have said nothing about his wife and very little about him. Dee, N8UZE In Mark's jumbled mind, Dee, you need not do so. In his paranoid mind you are guilty by association. Ignore him. |
libel and VE Testing
wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:48:47 -0500, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:27:59 -0800, John Smith I wrote: wrote: a women such as Dee should have better about attacks on other women, period Stop whining, Mark. You sound like a petulant six year old. we;; Cassie you should be outraged too being that you are a gal yourself how would you feel if someone called you a man I'd consider the source and let it drop. I'd certainly NOT accuse the poster of "staking" or of many of the other myriad accusations you make. Norwould I whine about it in fifty to sixty posts per diem. You really are paranoid/delusional, you know. |
libel and VE Testing
Were you afraid? yes when someone taken seriously responds without even noting that she is jioning calling my wife a man threatens us with incitment of further violnece You said, "not stlaking just garden variety jerking you around it does not rise to stalking till somebody makes a threat of violence so not quite" never said that You certainly did. nope I did not That is a direct quote from a post you made just yesterday. it was made by one of the sock puppets that like forge me You are lying again. Heck, who knows? If you tell it often enough maybe someone will believe you. but you fail to adress the issue of dee giving credence to steve shemale **** by repaeting in her own posts I need not bother addressing a non-issue. I'll leave that entirely up to your odd thought processes. and he choosing to call me Morkie in here responses to the thread Oh, here you go again. Whining. Did it hurt your sensitivities by being called Morkie? Too bad. |
libel and VE Testing
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:01:37 -0500, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:14:20 -0500, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote: Oh, here you go again. Whining. Did it hurt your sensitivities by being called Morkie? she claims she does not enage in name calling and then does it Read Dee's posts again. why should they were bad enough the first time Try to comprehend. Dee is fair and objective and has already discredited your goofy accusations. no she has not discredited anything She has not "enage"d in ANY name calling. bull**** when she titles some Morkie..." she is name calling Referring to you as Morkie is NOT name calling, despite your best attempts to twist it otherwise. Now, if she'd called you an asshole, THAT would be name-calling. you are the proof of what I accuse her of giving activ e aid to my foes wether deliberately or negliantly i care not You have "foes", whether real or imagined, because of your incessant and boorish flooding of this and other newsgroups. Dee offers no aid to anybody other than assisting fellow Amateurs to upgrade and further enjoy this hobby. Your accusations ring as hollow as that head of yours, Morkie. and yet you go on and on about them When I post sixty, seventy or more posts per diem, or 400 posts in any given month, then tell me I go "on and on". And if I were as doltish as you, and if I were to be so stupid as to flood this group with spam demanding an "apology" from Steve, then you might be able to accuse me of going "on and on". Again, Morkie, you prove over and over that you are obsessive/compulsive and lack touch with reality. |
libel and VE Testing
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:23:24 -0500, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:01:37 -0500, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:14:20 -0500, "Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote: Oh, here you go again. Whining. Did it hurt your sensitivities by being called Morkie? she claims she does not enage in name calling and then does it Read Dee's posts again. why should they were bad enough the first time Try to comprehend. Dee is fair and objective and has already discredited your goofy accusations. no she has not discredited anything She has not "enage"d in ANY name calling. bull**** when she titles some Morkie..." she is name calling Referring to you as Morkie is NOT name calling, yes it is palina nd simple you are the proof of what I accuse her of giving activ e aid to my foes wether deliberately or negliantly i care not You have "foes", whether real or imagined, because of your incessant and boorish flooding of this and other newsgroups. nope it is becuase I did not yeaild to the blackmail of Steve J robeson 9 years agao Dee offers no aid to anybody bull**** you deliberately or neglenatly aided Roesbon your posts are proof of that Again, Morkie, you prove over and over that you are obsessive/compulsive and lack touch with reality. funny uo are the one that can't even give their own name that has to enage in name calling at every chance Making ovservations of your strange habits is not name calling. I state facts. You certainly provide no shortage of ammunition. |
VE Testing Rules
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? Perhaps this was the same VE team that tested the 4 1/2 year old? That way, they could likewise "mentor" old geezers during their examination, so said bitter old geezers could get their 'license'? |
libel and VE Testing
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 For the record I have never asked for session in chassell but one in Houghton in the same room that can be used by Husky ARS members and CCARS member almost anytime (if MTU is hosting some conference restrictions aplly) I dropped George an email containing links to the postings containing your accusations that his VE team is biased (very serious charges, as I'm sure you know, since they could affect his status as a licensed amateur.) Perhaps he'd like to comment. At the very least maybe he'll give you a call on the phone or stop by to have a chat with you. |
Morkie and VE Testing
"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"? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com