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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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

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