/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)

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, 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

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'?

On Mar 11, 3:45�am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:

AF6AY 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?

I doubt it.

Those 4-1/2 year olds were tested in Indiana. AF6AY was tested in
California. AF6AY does
not know and has never met anyone involved
in the VE testing of those children back in 1998.
He simply *ASSUMES* that there is no way
they could have passed the tests honestly.

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.

That way,
they could likewise "mentor" old geezers during their examination, so said
bitter old geezers could get their 'license'?

All the VEs and volunteer examiners I have
known and met have been very careful to follow
both the spirit and letter of the rules. That doesn't
mean all VEs are perfect. Just that I don't have any
first hand objective evidence of any VEs "mentoring"
during a test. Neither does AF6AY have any first
hand objective evidence of such behavior by those
VEs in Indiana.

Of course there have been documented cases of
VEs not following the rules to the letter. FCC has
conducted investigations and retests. AFAIK, no
such investigation has ever been done on the
VEs discussed by AF6AY.

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. Nor should
there be, IMHO, even though in recent years the
worst violators of FCC rules for the Amateur Radio
service have been in a certain age group. 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.

--

Then there's the issue of the analogy between
ARS rules changes and real estate zoning
changes, but that's another thread....

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

On Mar 11, 8:29?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
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".

How about this one:

;-^


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"?

I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) Doesn't like children, or doesn't want to deal with them.

2) Doesn't want amateur radio to be "G-rated".

3) Thinks radio should be an adults-only activity.
(There's a quote to this effect).

4) Wants to cut off a source of new amateurs

5) Wants to spite those amateurs who were
licensed at an early age. (I earned my Novice
at age 13, Technician and Advanced at 14, and Extra at 16. The only
reason I took me to 16 to get
the Extra was the old 2 year experience rule.)

6) Is jealous of the accomplishments of young
amateurs

7) Believes that young people learn Morse Code
more easily, and are more likely to become
skilled in its use and actually use it as radio
amateurs. Cutting off the supply of young, Morse-
Code-skilled amateurs at the source is one way to
fight the *use* of the mode.

How's that?

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?

Possibly. The problem is that such retesting would
place a burden both on the licensees and the VE
system.

It would be a shame, for instance, if a geezer's amplifer malfunctioned,
arc'd over to his oxygen bottle, and an explosion resulted.

Yes, that would be a shame.

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.

Actually it's quite rare. But it's certainly a lot
more common
than such violations by young amateurs.

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

Heck, I'd be embittered if I'd had to wait until I was
14 years old!

AF6AY did not have to wait 80 years, however. When *he* was young,
there was no age requirement. He wants to impose a requirement
that *he* did not have to deal with.

He has always been eligible to get an amateur radio license. He could
have earned an amateur
radio license whenever he wanted. He *chose*
to wait all those years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

On Mar 11, 8:14�am, wrote:
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.

What would you have me do, Mr. "Cheese"? (I'd use your
name and/or callsign, but you don't include either in your
postings.)

It seems you want me to stop posting the facts here,
particularly when you don't like the facts presented.

*The story presented in QST is preposterous.

Do you mean this story on the ARRL website?

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

Why is it preposterous?

It's a fact that gifted young children, placed in a
supportive environment, can often learn things far
beyond the mean/average/median for their biological
age.

Only you believed it.

That's demonstrably untrue.

The folks at ARRL believed it enough to put it
on the website.

The folks at FCC believed it enough to issue the
licenses.

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

There have been other verified stories about
young amateurs. Since 2000, a six-year-old has
passed the General, and a seven-year-old has
passed the Extra. Both stories in QST.
FCC had no problem believing either.

In fact that seven-year-old broke the previous record,
held by an eight-year-old who passed the old pre-2000
Extra, complete with 20 wpm code and five written tests.

All those young amateurs still have their licenses. They
haven't gotten into any problems with FCC.

If anything is preposterous, it's the idea that amateur
radio needs some sort of minimum age limit.

If anything is preposterous, it's someone accusing
complete strangers of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" without
any objective evidence.

Jim, N2EY

On Mar 11, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:14?am, wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:59 pm, wrote:

Jim, N2EY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, get over yourself.

What would you have me do, Mr. "Cheese"? (I'd use your
name and/or callsign, but you don't include either in your
postings.)

(Shhhh. I'm working undercover for Riley.)

It seems you want me to stop posting the facts here,
particularly when you don't like the facts presented.

Most thinking people know enough to smile and move on. Like some of
the things Mark says.

Is it really worth a mailing campaign to his neighbors and neighboring
hams? Does that make you feel better?