Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 12, 2:31�pm, "
wrote: From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still believed it. *NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143 *on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-) You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad. Apologies all around. * *Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with * *an APOLOGY! *The world may be coming to an end! Why? I've always acknowledged and corrected my mistakes here. When they were genuine, objective mistakes, that is. It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC. * *Oh, my, Jimmie BLEW IT ALL AWAY...! * *In 1998 I was NOT licensed as any radio amateur but * *was ALREADY licensed as a COMMERCIAL radio operator * *for 42 years...and had actual experience in long- * *distance HF communications 45 years before. So what? In 1998 you were not a radio amateur. How did my saying that simple fact blow it all away? * *Further, I had been a hobbyist in radio and * *electronics since 1947 (hobbies are classified as * *'amateur' activities by almost everyone else except * *olde-tyme ham morsemen). * And the FCC, ITU, and most radio amateurs. Not only that, in 1998 * *I had already retired from a four-decade career as * *an electronics engineer in southern California * *aerospace industries...and was already in a new * *career that had involved a Private Land Mobile * *Radio Services station of which I was co-owner. But you were not a radio amateur then. Gee, for somebody who claims not to need "rank, title and status", you sure do put yours out there often enough. * *So, you are wanting to still label me as an "amateur" * *in radio? You're a radio amateur, Len. When you got the license, you got that title. Anyone who holds a valid Amateur Radio license (regardless of license class) is a radio amateur. Nobody else. * *Of course you do. *You can't help but attempt to * *denigrate anything I post in here. *:-( Do you think that being called a radio amateur is an insult, Len? Here's *why I brought up the "age limit" thing: * *That's just this latest go-around. *What about all * *those OTHER past harrangues you've tried to hang * *on my SUGGESTION on minimum age limits? "Harangues", Len. One 'n'. I brought it up this time because it proved "hot-ham-and-cheese" to be mistaken. As for being a "SUGGESTION" - everything proposed to FCC in Comments and Reply Comments is essentially a "SUGGESTION". You wrote what you wanted FCC to do: ban anyone under the age of 14 from Amateur Radio. I think you still want that. FCC looked at your idea/proposal/suggestion/reasoning/arguments about that and chose not to act on it. "hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody but me believed the story about the young amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous. I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but so did the FCC. * *WRONG. * No, right. I pointed it out. The FCC did NOT "believe" it.. Sure they did. If they did not, they would not have issued the licenses. .the FCC * *accepted the input of the ARRL VEC. *Pro forma * *stuff done electronically. In 1998? Can you be sure? * *The FCC had long before introduced the "no age * *restrictions" on license applicants. Not exactly. There has *never* been *any* age restriction for a US amateur radio license. The FCC and all its predecessors in amateur radio regulations never ever saw the need for any such restriction. Not since the beginning of mandatory licensing in 1912. So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken about me being the only one who believed the story. * *NO. *You are confusing an ARRL "story" (an * *article on their website) with what YOU * *"think the FCC believes." *You only IMAGINE * *what "the FCC believes." The ARRL story was presented to FCC in your Reply Comments, Len. You went into detail about it as a reason to impose a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Someone at FCC reads all the Comments and Reply Comments. So *people* at FCC knew all about the licensing of those 4 year olds, from your Reply Comments and the ARRL story. FCC also enforces their rules, and has investigated claims of rules violations at VE sessions. But they did not investigate that VE session, nor revoke any licenses or VE accreditation in connection with it. FCC clearly believed, and continues to believe, that there were no rules violations committed at the VE session which licensed those 4 year olds. FCC accepts the ARRL story as valid, not "preposterous". Otherwise they would have acted. The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the VE system. * *Bull****. *Another fabrication of yours. Why? Because I proved "hot-ham-and-cheese" to be mistaken? You accused complete strangers of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all. * *TS. *I will CONTINUE to do so, electronically * *or face-to-face in-person ANY time there is * *the OBVIOUS sign of such things. I don't think you would say these things in person. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the VEs who administered your testing to your accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at the ARRL and some Indiana VEs. * *No problem to me. *Just pay for their transport * *and lodging out here, along with yourself, and * *you can "see" all you want. *Record it if you * *want. *I'll just gather a group of local licensed * *(and unlicensed) radio amateurs of like opinions * *and we can all have a big gang-bang. *Okay? I don't think you'd say it to the VEs by yourself. * *Otherwise, DROP this stupid harrangue of yours * *that is already SEVEN YEARS OLD. Who are you to tell me to shut up? *You aren't * *"winning' a damn thing and you are annoying * *the rest of the folks (with the exception of * *Heil, Deignan, and probably Kelly) with your * *"endless summer" of "no-age-limit" harrangues. Nobody is complaining except you, Len. Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len? How do you like the Icom IC-7800? * *I'm considering a Request for Quote from Harris on * *the station and for an octet of rhombics on a large * *ranch in Wyoming. * OK for DX but not optimum for USA contacts, except maybe to the coasts. Rhombics are so 1930s. too - the modern way is Yagis. Three elements on 40, for example. And why stop at 40? At this point in the sunspot sunspot cycle, an 80 meter quad is indicated... The octet is, naturally, for * *DX on 40m CW and up in frequency along with a remote * *switching selection to eliminate rotator needs. That's nice, Len. But who will operate it for you? * *[the cattle can graze peacefully underneath it all] * *I'm even considering abondoning that Wyoming * *territory in favor of Nevada or Arizona. *Takes time. Seven more years? * *No, I'm not buying stock in any of the Big3 in * *Japan. *The shares of General Electric and AT&T * *here are doing just fine. They don't make ham rigs. * *Thanks for asking. You're welcome! So I guess you won't be on the amateur bands any time soon. Particularly "40 CW and up". I could be mistaken about that, of course. 7037 kHz is the RRAP CW frequency, btw. I've worked quite a few there.... Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Radio Revolution, the DRM way | Shortwave | |||
Revolution in Ukraine? | Shortwave | |||
The Revolution Will Not be Televised | Shortwave | |||
The Revolution Isn't Being Radioized | Shortwave | |||
Revolution in Haiti? | Shortwave |