In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

That could be what I was thinking of. Quoted by ya'll referring to Fred.
But I distinctly remember there being a discussion about lowering the
technical test requirements and that NCI was in favor of that.

NCI was NOT in favor of that ... Fred, and Fred alone, in his capacity
on the QPC, stated something to the effect that HE thought that since
most Techs use store-bought rigs, the Tech test could be simplified.
I (and as I recall, all of the other NCI directors who spoke on the subject)
disagreed with that view.

I think most hams would disagree with Fred on that, too.

But let's look at Fred's argument: "something to the effect that HE thought
that since most Techs use store-bought rigs, the Tech test could be
simplified."

Don't most hams (of all license classes) use store-bought rigs? If so, then
that same argument could be applied to all of the written tests.

However, Fred ALSO indicated that he thought that the Extra written
test could/should be made more rigorous.

But why? The only difference in operating privileges between Extras and Techs
is that Extras have all amateur operating privileges, and Techs have all
amateur operating privileges above 30 MHz. Same power level, same choice of
modes (including CW/Morse), same authorization to homebrew, modify, etc.

In fact, there are lots of modes authorized to hams above 30 MHz that are not
authorized below 30 MHz. RF exposure at HF is less of a hazard than at some
VHF/UHF frequencies.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


heh heh...he just doesn't understand the concept of "not my problem,"
Brian!
;)

Brian's saying that it isn't his problem does not mean that he has no
problem. In this case, it only means that he doesn't care to
acknowledge it.

Dave K8MN


People who generally don't acknowledge problems, generally don't have
them... But, that is much too liberating a thought for you, Dave.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


heh heh...he just doesn't understand the concept of "not my problem,"
Brian!
;)

Brian's saying that it isn't his problem does not mean that he has no
problem. In this case, it only means that he doesn't care to
acknowledge it.

Dave K8MN


People who generally don't acknowledge problems, generally don't have
them... But, that is much too liberating a thought for you, Dave.

Read any of the filth coming from the interesting fellow here in my
county who posts through the "anonymous" remailers? He doesn't
acknowledge that he has problems. That doesn't mean that he doesn't
have any.

Or perhaps you'd disagree.

Dave K8MN