X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:46:20 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !^^9?1k-WX65bPG1a"NO (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative
indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio.

It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement
goes away.

Balogny... What this states is that all non-coded techs
have insufficiient interest in "ham radio." Note the above
does not specify any license level whereas below the
poster changes to a specific referral to Extra. That is NOT
how the original post started out.


EXACTLY. I'm waiting to see ( another post in this thread from me) when
the campaign is going to start against everyone who's *"never bothered"* to
TAKE a ham radio exam. And, how can it be *"explained away"* that there is
probably a higher percentage of General-and-above license holders who are no
longer even active. WOW, now that's interest for you!

THEN, and not least of all, I agree Bill. These guys are bouncing all over
the topic.


Mike, I think you'll be quite disappointed if you "trust" in someone's
interest level based on their relationship (or lack of) with CW.

Not the CW, Kim. It's any part of the testing regimen that a person
"won't" take. If a person refuses to take the Extra test, they aren't
that interested in being an Extra.

So what. They may have less interest in Extra, but
that does not equate to a broader lack of interest
in "ham radio" (rather than just Extra) as the original post
was first articulated.

Let's even take your own case. You're a Tech Plus, IIRC. Are you
interested in taking the General test? If yes, you'll be studying for
it. If not, then you aren't that interested in becoming a General.
- Mike KB3EIA -

Fair enough on the specific application to General. BUT, would
you state that Kim doesn't have a positive interest in "ham radio"
just because she doesn't upgrade?

THANK YOU!! Let's see what the answer is. Because, I'm willing to bet that
the answer is going to do one of two things: 1) it will skirt around the
question entirely and never be answered or, 2) it will be totally ignored.



Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:
Some more trimming here for ths long post


EXACTLY. I'm waiting to see ( another post in this thread from me) when
the campaign is going to start against everyone who's *"never bothered"* to
TAKE a ham radio exam. And, how can it be *"explained away"* that there is
probably a higher percentage of General-and-above license holders who are no
longer even active. WOW, now that's interest for you!

THEN, and not least of all, I agree Bill. These guys are bouncing all over
the topic.

Let me phrase the issue as I see it.

People often have hobbies as a part of their spare time.

Generally, a person takes up a hobby that interests them.

If there is some requirement of the hobby that the person does not
like, they have two choices put up with the requirement or not get
involved. Examples might be I though about getting a pilot's license at
one time. But the expense of getting the license, then joining a club to
share a plane with several others, and I changed my mind. I guess I
wasn't as interested as the person who goes through all that and gets
his or her pilot's license.

In short, I was not that interested.

My final original point was that that a person who would not study
Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin
to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks."




Fair enough on the specific application to General. BUT, would
you state that Kim doesn't have a positive interest in "ham radio"
just because she doesn't upgrade?


THANK YOU!! Let's see what the answer is. Because, I'm willing to bet that
the answer is going to do one of two things: 1) it will skirt around the
question entirely and never be answered or, 2) it will be totally ignored.


I think I answered the question, Kim. You can tell me if I skirted the
issue or not.

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: Mike Coslo:

My final original point was that that a person who would not study
Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin
to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks."


The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some
sort of barrier to getting a higher license class

Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone
not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore
having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in
Morse code.

Putting this artificial barrier may have the effect of blocking out those with
more ability or interest in favor of those with less ability or interest. The
only thing being that some with less ability or interest learned Morse code,
did HF, and not much else. A higher license class should represent more ability
(in the skills tested), not less.

Code has nothing to do with the written material. It's a different kind of
skill. And it's a single skill independent of other skills. Just as various
awards are recognized individually, like Worked All States, one can recognize
code skill separately from the written tests.

The written tests are classes of technical ability. By placing code in between,
it implies that someone that learned code automatically and instantly also has
higher technical ability. We know that's not true. For example, degreed EEs
tend to have higher technical ability since they have already studied some of
the material. They would still have to review the rf specific areas, and the
areas on regulations.

The code should not be in the path way in between the written tests. Basic
integrity in Amateur Radio testing requires that.

(Vshah101) writes:

The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated
skill as some sort of barrier to getting a higher license class

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS really
want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Morse code does not necessarily show more interest.

Refusal to pay the cost shows that you perceive the benefit to be
worth less than that. The cost is some 20 hours learning code. You
feel that joining ARS isn't worth the 20 hours of your time.

Putting this artificial barrier may have the effect of blocking out
those with more ability or interest in favor of those with less
ability or interest.

Adding requirements is unlikely to block the highly-qualified more
than it blocks the less-qualified.

Code has nothing to do with the written material. It's a different
kind of skill.

Sure. So?

And it's a single skill independent of other skills.

Sure. So?

...one can recognize code skill separately from the written tests.

One could. So?

The written tests are classes of technical ability.

Arguably, not all relevant. Who actually uses spread-spectrum as an
operating mode?

The code should not be in the path way in between the written tests. Basic
integrity in Amateur Radio testing requires that.

It is not an integrity issue.

Regards,
Len.

wrote in message ...
(Vshah101) writes:

The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated
skill as some sort of barrier to getting a higher license class

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS really
want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT
get to impose any requirements at all. The FCC makes
the rules and, as a government entity, it has NO justification
to make requirements that can not be justified.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote:

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS
really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any
requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government
entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be
justified.

Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the
demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the
FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all.
It's very strange business, really.

Regards,
Len.

wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote:

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS
really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any
requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government
entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be
justified.

Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the
demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the
FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all.
It's very strange business, really.

The limits of power for government agencies is
found in 5 USC 706 that provides:

"To the extent necessary to decision and when presented,
the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law,
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and
determine the meaning or applicability of the terms
of an agency action."

"The reviewing court shall -
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or
unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be -
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case
subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or
otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency
hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the
facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court."

"In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall
review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party,
and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error."

The Morse code exams are unnecessary [arbitrary].
5 USC 706(2)(A).

The only thing strange thing about this is how long the
ITU and FCC allowed this nonsense to continue.

Larry, kc8epo

Vshah101 wrote:
From: Mike Coslo:


My final original point was that that a person who would not study
Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin
to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks."



The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some
sort of barrier to getting a higher license class

Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone
not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore
having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in
Morse code.

No, of course interest in Morse code does not in itself show more
interest in the ARS in general.

My thoughts were that if a person is really interested in something,
they will pursue that, even if there are some parts that they are not
concerned with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Vshah101) wrote in message ...
From: Mike Coslo:

My final original point was that that a person who would not study
Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin
to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks."


The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some
sort of barrier to getting a higher license class.

Morse Code is not (has not) been irrelevent. It has been a legal
prerequisite for operation on HF allocations.

Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone
not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore
having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in
Morse code.

If they are not interested enough to do what's necessary to get a
license, then they are not interested enough. Taking the time to get
past the 5WPM test, even when it's not one's primary interest,
certainly DOES show one's more interested than one who is not.

Putting this artificial barrier may have the effect of blocking out those with
more ability or interest in favor of those with less ability or interest. The
only thing being that some with less ability or interest learned Morse code,
did HF, and not much else. A higher license class should represent more ability
(in the skills tested), not less.

An HF license DOES show more ability. I can do more with my HF
radio than YOU can, Vippy.

Code has nothing to do with the written material. It's a different kind of
skill. And it's a single skill independent of other skills. Just as various
awards are recognized individually, like Worked All States, one can recognize
code skill separately from the written tests.

The written tests are classes of technical ability. By placing code in between,
it implies that someone that learned code automatically and instantly also has
higher technical ability. We know that's not true. For example, degreed EEs
tend to have higher technical ability since they have already studied some of
the material. They would still have to review the rf specific areas, and the
areas on regulations.

The code should not be in the path way in between the written tests. Basic
integrity in Amateur Radio testing requires that.

The Morse Code test is NOT in the way of the written tests. You
may pass all the written tests without having passed the Code test.
My wife passed the written General WITHOUT having passed the Code
test. Has the CSCE to prove it.

Steve, K4YZ