Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl.


A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is
there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that
they are in sequence?

I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner
or later it will have to be changed.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I dunno, Mike. Were you around during the last restructuring?

nope.

The
NPRM was the most amateurish piece of literature I've ever seen from a
government agency. The R/O was the second most. Left more questions
than answers. Of course, there was a lot of interference from the
ARRL in the process, so...

Hmm, too bad. Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no
element 1. It would make good joke material, or maybe the start of a
legend. "The ghost of Element 1" 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no
element 1.

Not really!

Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC):

1A - 5 wpm code
1B - 13 wpm code
1C - 20 wpm code
2 - Novice written
3A - Tech written
3B - General written
4A - Advanced written
4B - Extra written

Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called
Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed
to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written
(Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra.

Etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WA3IYC wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no
element 1.


Not really!

Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC):

1A - 5 wpm code
1B - 13 wpm code
1C - 20 wpm code
2 - Novice written
3A - Tech written
3B - General written
4A - Advanced written
4B - Extra written

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called
Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed
to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written
(Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra.

Etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Where you posting from, Jim?

- Mike KB3EIA -

I suspect that when the FCC eliminates "Element 1" they will (editorially)
renumber the elements.

Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...
WA3IYC wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no
element 1.


Not really!

Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC):

1A - 5 wpm code
1B - 13 wpm code
1C - 20 wpm code
2 - Novice written
3A - Tech written
3B - General written
4A - Advanced written
4B - Extra written

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written,
called
Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were
changed
to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra
written
(Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra.

Etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Where you posting from, Jim?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I suspect that when the FCC eliminates "Element 1" they will (editorially)
renumber the elements.


I sure hope so, Carl! Stuff like that drives me crazy!


yea.. I know.. I'm already there..

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match,
I take the former every time.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match,
I take the former every time.


I'm afraid we're gonna get the taffy-pull/furball anyway, though. By inaction,
FCC has opened the floodgates to a zillion petitions on everyhting under the
sun. Which will then be smooshed into an NPRM, and finally maybe some rules
changes that have little resemblance to said NPRM.

Maybe somewhere in there that stupid BPL idea will get squelched.

No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea as BPL
has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea
as BPL
has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Whoever said the FCC was an "expert agency"???

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 22 Aug 2003 10:43:17 GMT, WA3IYC wrote:

No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an
idea as BPL has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all
but disappear.

I hate to admit it, but my own loss of respect for the policy,
administrative, and in some regards technical decisions being made
by the top brass of said "expert agency" was one of the reasons that
this "expert" and many others are no longer with said "agency".

My mentor in climbing the legal ladder just hit the retirement
rolls, and a good protege of mine is heading for same at the end of
next month. They feel the same way.

After a while when one plays in manure one can't get rid of the
smell....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Retired and loving every minute of it....
Work was getting in the way of my hobbies

Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.


So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match,
I take the former every time.


When you put it that way, yes. Bu I expect that there will be lots of
that taffy pulling, when we have a former President of NCI espousing his
terrible proposed changes, while Carl's method would work without making
a mess. But the FCC has to weigh both. There will probably be even more
proposals as time goes on.

And since many of the statement I've seen from them talk about their
desire to remove regulations, I wonder what the final outcome might be.
In an extreme (admittedly unlikely) outcome, we may not have to worry
about the numbering of the elements. There may be no elements. But I see
a possibility of there being only one element after the dust settles.

- Mike KB3EIA -