|
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote: How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need). However, if code testing remains solely as a means to exclude "those people," others in the future will be. "Those people" include anyone you set out to exclude. You want stiffer written tests (or code testing) to exclude "dumbed down" people. I don't agree with that. Show me something that individual has done wrong and I'll support your efforts to get rid of that person. However, I'm not willing to exclude groups of people simply because some don't like them or a few in that group have done things some don't like. Many don't like CB'ers and want stiffer written exams (or code testing) to keep "those people" out. I don't agree with that. Again, if you want to throw someone out because that person has broken the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'm not willing to exclude someone from even getting into ham radio simply because they once owned a CB radio and we don't like what some did with those radios. No it's not to keep them out but to insure that they KNOW the rules and regulations and good operating practices when they do make the transition to ham radio. Given some of the questions that licensed hams have asked about the rules and regs that they should already know since they have passed the tests, I'm inclined to think that stiffer exams are necessary to insure that ham radio doesn't turn into a mess due to ignorance on the part of otherwise well intentioned new operators. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
First off, I don't think I've ever said "dumbed down". If you know I have, post the reference. You've agreed with Brian and 'dumbed down" were his words. I do not consider the Morse Code to be *any test of intelligence or desirability whatsoever. What I do consider it is a method of ensuring that the person actually wants to be in the service. It is a measure of inclusivity, not exclusivity. Kind of like learning to parallel park or do a three point turn. That ridiculous, Mike. Surely you must be joking. That premise is absurd at its very core. It's basically saying nearly half the Hams today, those without code skills, didn't actually want to be involved in Ham Radio - that all their money invested in radio equipment and efforts invested in activities were done because they didn't really want any of this. And that, in the end, only a code test will prove they actually did want it. If I didn't think you were serious, I'd be laughing at this point. (snip) We do already have indications of what the spectrum of behaviors are. Right now, those who favor less knowledge have the upper hand. Okay, now I'm laughing. Where are all those people who have the upper hand (the ones who favor less knowledge)? There must be many thousands of them if they have the upper hand. I've been involved with Ham Radio for a number of years now and I have yet to hear all those people advocating less knowledge about Ham Radio. I haven't seen any web sites stating that goal. I've never talked to a person on the radio who has stated that goal. If these people actually exist, they must be the most secret group in America. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: (my comments here snipped) As you no doubt consider us cranks, eh? No, I don't consider you anything. However, I am a bit frustrated that my comments are being twisted to apply to arguments I never made. Throughout this discussion, my comments have focused solely on Brian's argument for stiffer written tests. Since then, my words have been twisted to apply to the current tests and to some potential future tests that don't even exist yet (and will very likely never exist). Likewise, code testing has been added to the discussion - a subject I've tried hard to avoid over the last two to three years and tried to minimize in this discussion. I'm not here to debate the code tests. Brian's idea of stiffer written exams don't exclude if it serves a purpose or need. However, if done solely to keep others out, it also does exclude. (snip) (snip) Again, once we start down the path of excluding others, when does it stop and who else do we exclude? Am I next in the list? Are you? (snip) And yet, somehow, some way, she learned Morse code, studied for and passed the General test, and is now on the air as an active ham. When I see the whining about exclusivity, and all the other complaining about how unfair the Morse code test, I often think of her. Then I think of the complainers and compare them, who think it is just too hard, and her, she who took the trouble to learn, even though she has not been blessed with the same gifts as most of us. She's a brother/sister ham, and I'm happy and proud to INCLUDE her in the service. Wanna guess who I respect more? See what I mean? I made a comment about "Brian's idea of stiffer written exams" and you responded with comments about code testing. Lets try to get pass this issue once and for all. I've never complained about the code tests being too hard, nor have I ever said they were unfair. I don't care about code testing. In my opinion, with the recent ITU changes, this issue will soon be dead anyway. Further, to clarify another issue, my comments about excluding people applied only to the idea of using license requirements solely in an effort to exclude - I didn't introduce that premise, those specifically advocating the exclusion of others did. If you're one of those people, and those are your ideals, I don't really care to know who you're proud of or respect. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!! How's things up there north of the North pole, Gud Buddie??? Shootin' lots of skip on the upper side these days? Sure must be awful, having to slither through all that permafrost getting NO sleep in all the wall tyo wall daylight! Life's a bitch and then you die! Well gee DICK, no as a matter of fact I'm not much aware of CB and all the required vocabulary. You see, unlike you, I never did use CB. Now, tell me why anyone would want to pay any attention to what another CB'er like you has to say about the ARS? Hey hypocrite, shouldn't we cross post this to a CB group so you'll be at home? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!! One thing more, you flaming nincompoop- the ONLY reason I hang out here is to counter the misinformation dished out by phoney dingalings like you. For sure there are more fun ways to spend my retirement, but I will not allow the likes of you to by the only resource for the new and future hams reading here. They deserve better- MUCH better. You hang out here because you're a hypocrite. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
(snip) ALL licenses exclude those who don't meet the qualifications, and include those who do. Why else would they exist? There is a huge difference in requirements necessary to meet a certain goal or purpose and requirements designed to exclude those we doesn't like, Dick. I'm sure you know that. And I'm equally sure you know this discussion is about the latter. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 1 Aug 2003 07:00:01 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: Then they come up with notions like putting chunks of mind-bending intellectual and political expertise like Arnold to work on leading 'em out of the swamp . . Was Ronnie the Ray-Gun any better ?? Hey I kinda liked his Shiny Pebbles thingies . . Hey, was Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, the professional politician, Yale law school graduate, YALE? Well, there ya have it . . any better? BTW - Arnold declined to run. Supposedly his XYL put the nix on it because she doesn't want to be anywhere near the BS. |
Hey, Floyd!!! Wow, you got Dickie going!! LOL
Kim W5TIT "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Floyd Davidson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!! How's things up there north of the North pole, Gud Buddie??? Shootin' lots of skip on the upper side these days? Sure must be awful, having to slither through all that permafrost getting NO sleep in all the wall tyo wall daylight! Life's a bitch and then you die! Yep, Gud Buddie, I was there at the very beginning, even before the beginning, when 11 meters was a fullfledged ham band. But it sure wasn't used much and - like I said- I knew no ham who lamented it's reassignment, in fact most hams I knew thought it a neat idea. We liked radio and knew some ordianry folds who used CB would get to liking it too, and become hams, especially if us hams got on CB-with licnses, of course- and talked them into it. And that was the way it worked, for a time. Then the scabs came and ran out the normal folk.... An would you believe there's more? In the winter of 1958, as a student I and the gentleman I worked part time for *built* a pair of CB sets to use in his business. Yes, BUILT them, from an article in Popular Electronics. He (a ham also) ordered the parts and we put them together like kits. All very legal and above board at that time. There were NO commercial CB sets yet on the market. But hey, you missed all this! You weren't even licensed as a ham 'til 1960, and from your postings, you never were active enough to know what went on. even then. So I suppose we'll just have to POOF! blow you off like the rest of the lightweights. All talk and no walk, that's our snakey friend from the frozen north. Must be a real pain slithering you way across the frozen tundra. But carry on! You can do it! And regardless of how silly all of your other arguments are, such as your statement that you knew of no hams that lamented the loss of 11 meters, your claim that the difference between CB and Amateur Radio is the *code test*, is utterly absurd. The difference is having an *appropriate* *technical* *test* that pertains to what the Amateur Radio Service is today. So you think there's a technical test involved in ham radio licensing today? Really? Have you even seen a test lately? The question pools which not only give all the questions with their exact answers, till recently they even listed the answers in the same order in the pool that they appeared in the tests. Some technical test! No surprise that so many new hams today are not literate at all on the material ton which they were just tested. No one ever said the tests, especially the entry levels need be difficult nor cover that much technical material, but what we have today is simply a sham. And you should know it, but clearly do not. In 1960 when I was first licensed a code test was most certainly a valid part of such an appropriate test, but it hasn't been now for 20 years at least. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. Yoiurs doesn't smell any better than that of anyone else. All you are is a narrow minded bigot that wants a play pen that elevates you to king of the sand box and keeps other who might challenge you out. Dare I note that you're an ignoramous of the first magnitude? Yes I dare, in fact I 'll state it unambiguously and most forcefully. It's rare that you'll ever encounte another ham who has been personally responsible for so many hams becoming licensed. of ALL classes, including many codeless techs. Not only did I do this willingly, I did it voluntarily and for the most part eagerly. On Tuesday night after our test session I always stayed up until all the paperwork was finalized and ready to drop into the post office first thing next morning on my way to work at 6. Need I say I never got more than a very few hours sleep on those workweek nights? Have you done any of that Frosty Floyd? So now you're working to get a "remote licensing" system for the Alaska outback. Wunnerful! That'll never be compromised, I'm sure! I held a commercial telegraph license, and worked for a company that actually paid (other) people to operate CW, but the last commercial CW operation was *decades* ago now. And that is exactly when the code requirement for the Amateur Radio Service should have been removed. Floyd, you really need to move down to the lower 48 where you can try to stay in contact with realty. The US Coast Guard dropped the Maritime 500khz wartch four years ago. There is still commercial CW in many places in the world, not that it matters to us hams. If you really think that CW in ham radio is dead, well you should try turning on a HF receiver at once in your lifetime and tune it down to the lowe end of any HF band, assuming you can find one. Surprise, surprise! Now, why don't you just slide back under the 27 MHz rock that you slithered out from, dick. Well Frosty, I was there and watched the rock form. Get back to us when you learn something. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... Further, to clarify another issue, my comments about excluding people applied only to the idea of using license requirements solely in an effort to exclude - I didn't introduce that premise, those specifically advocating the exclusion of others did. If you're one of those people, and those are your ideals, I don't really care to know who you're proud of or respect. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ HOOWAHH, Dwight. Yessirreee, that is *exactly* on target! Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com