| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
August 13th 03, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#62
August 13th 03, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#63
August 13th 03, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Jim Hampton" writes: No, Mopar, the VEs charge. It used to be free at the FCC, but, for me at least, that meant a 60 mile trip (120 miles round trip) to the FCC in Buffalo, NY, and one minute of perfect copy at 20 words per minute. It was free at the FCC until 1963 or 1964, when they began charging for exams (except Novice). That continued into the mid 1970s. The fee for an exam started out at $4 and went up to $9. Now $9 doesn't sound like a lot today but back circa 1970 it was a lot of lawns cut or papers delivered if you were a kid. Even if you were an adult it could be a few hours' net pay. $10,000/yr was a good income back then, which works out to about $5/hour. Adjust that for inflation and today's VE fees are cheap. As AA2QA points out, though, the big expense and effort for many hams wasn't the exam itself but getting there. A kid in school had to wait for summer and working folk had to take at least a half day off 'cause the exams were on weekday mornings. No do-overs or CSCEs, either, if you failed by even one question, or were one letter short of the required copy, you could not retest for 30 days. I was lucky; Upper Darby to the Philly Custom House was just a subway ride with a short walk at each end. For a kid in Harrisburg, Scranton or South Jersey it was a big deal just to get there. The end result, though, was that most hams went to the exams extremely overprepared. Wasn't worth taking a chance on failing. 73 de Jim, N2EY But you know Jim even if they did prepare, A LOT FAILED, it was really an exercise in who could overcome the nerves. I had to take a 90 mile train ride to and from to take my test. I was 13 at the time, and my mother came along. We spent the night at my aunt and uncles. Years later I realized it was the 'original incentive licensing'. He stern words were " You better pass this thing the first time, we ain't doing this again". I nicknamed her 'Old Sarge'...but never to her face.. hi. Sure do miss her. Dan/W4NTI |
|
#64
August 14th 03, 12:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "John" =3D=3D Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes: [...] John What troubles me is this: You claimed to be a "coded Tech" and John yet here you are griping about code testing. To me, this doesn't John add up. If you've already passed the code test, then as long as John you hold onto the CSCE and keep your license current, you no John longer have to worry about it. The next step for you is to pass John Element 3 and upgrade to General. Your tone suggests to me that John you haven't passed a code test. Now, if you had posted your John call like many (most) of us here do, I could have checked on QRZ John and removed any such suspicions. As things stand, I and the rest John of us here in rrap have to wonder, under the circumstances, if John you even have a license at all. No license is required for John posting here, but if you are indeed a ham - regardless of your John license class - then be proud of that fact ande have the John courtesy to let the rest of us know who we're talking to, that's John all. What troubles *me* is this: 1. Posters here see inconsistency where it doesn't exist. There is no reason for a 20wpm Extra or a 5wpm Extra to support code testing just because they passed it. I am a 5wpm Extra, and I feel that the treaty was the only reason to maintain the test. I wanted the license bad enough to pass the test, so I passed. That doesn't mean I think that everyone else should. Trying to read whether or not someone has passed the code test by their tone is foolish, and wrapping the entire newsgroup under your "have to wonder" umbrella is just foolish, which leads me to... 2. Posters here look down on those who post without callsigns. Your comment that hams should "be proud" of their license is foolish, but not as foolish as your justification for callsign posting expectations -- "have the courtesy to let the rest of us know who we're talking to". This thing we're using is called "Usenet". It's been around for a long time, and the primary technical form of identification for posters is something called an "email address". It is also traditional to include one's real name or a pseudonym, often in something called a "signature" which is appended to their posts. I am using Dr. Evil quotes to make a point. If you haven't figured it out yet, here it is again from another direction. If I were calling CQ on 80 meters and using my email address, you'd be unimpressed. Someone out there could easily Google my email address to find out my name and other information and then search the FCC database to find my callsign and license class, but that's not an acceptable defense for not using the proper and traditional identification methods. My callsign shows up in approximately seven Usenet posts across three newsgroups, none of which include this group. When I speak here, I address myself as I wish to be addressed, which is by those forms of identifications, formal and traditional, that are appropriate to this media. The headers of my posts even include suggested attributions for replies to my posts. The lack of a callsign in my posts doesn't negate the value of what I type. It frankly isn't relevant to any posts -- my license class is relevant to some posts, but not many -- so I don't see any need to include that information. These comments aren't solely directed at you. You just wrote a post that pushed two of my buttons. You should only take it personally if those two items are things you really personally believe. =20=20=20=20 Jack. =2D --=20 Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/OsPbGPFSfAB/ezgRArY9AKCskgctJLmecnj+wg8uLHGcqF2H4QCg7oE7 oNqMdjKL8kXAsp59D/WO5Kc=3D =3DXk87 =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
#65
August 14th 03, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:03:48 -0700, Jack Twilley
wrote: 1. Posters here see inconsistency where it doesn't exist. There is no reason for a 20wpm Extra or a 5wpm Extra to support code testing just because they passed it. I am a 5wpm Extra, and I feel that the treaty was the only reason to maintain the test. I wanted the license bad enough to pass the test, so I passed. That doesn't mean I think that everyone else should. Trying to read whether or not someone has passed the code test by their tone is foolish, and wrapping the entire newsgroup under your "have to wonder" umbrella is just foolish, which leads me to... Well, Jack...I dunno how long you've been reading this NG, but I've been here long enough to have noticed some patterns in other people's posts. One of them is that trolls from rec.radio.cb who come here to whine about code testing never post a callsign, frequently post anonymously using a phony e-mail address, and post messages with a tone that makes their agenda obvious to even the most casual of observers. If you think that such reading between the lines is foolish, you're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that, rather than foolish, I find it a useful tool for determining which posters are interested in a serious discussion of an issue and which are merely trolls that aren't worth wasting the time to reply to. 2. Posters here look down on those who post without callsigns. Your comment that hams should "be proud" of their license is foolish, but not as foolish as your justification for callsign posting expectations -- "have the courtesy to let the rest of us know who we're talking to". This thing we're using is called "Usenet". It's been around for a long time, and the primary technical form of identification for posters is something called an "email address". It is also traditional to include one's real name or a pseudonym, often in something called a "signature" which is appended to their posts. I am using Dr. Evil quotes to make a point. If you haven't figured it out yet, here it is again from another direction. If I were calling CQ on 80 meters and using my email address, you'd be unimpressed. Someone out there could easily Google my email address to find out my name and other information and then search the FCC database to find my callsign and license class, but that's not an acceptable defense for not using the proper and traditional identification methods. My callsign shows up in approximately seven Usenet posts across three newsgroups, none of which include this group. When I speak here, I address myself as I wish to be addressed, which is by those forms of identifications, formal and traditional, that are appropriate to this media. The headers of my posts even include suggested attributions for replies to my posts. The lack of a callsign in my posts doesn't negate the value of what I type. It frankly isn't relevant to any posts -- my license class is relevant to some posts, but not many -- so I don't see any need to include that information. In the case of morphoholic, the issue isn't what his license class is, but whether or not he even HAS one. He claimed to. Anyone can claim to have a license. That doesn't mean that he or she does actually have one. This is a ham radio related newsgroup. Hams know one another by our calls, not our e-mail addresses or x-trace info or other server junk that goes into the headers on a usenet message. Most of us here like to know who we're talking to...and, being hams, we do that by callsign. I think you'll find plenty of regulars here who will agree with that. These comments aren't solely directed at you. You just wrote a post that pushed two of my buttons. You should only take it personally if those two items are things you really personally believe. No, I don't think I'm taking it personally; however, as I said, I think you'll find that many of the regulars here will agree that, this being a ham NG, there's a certain courtesy with posting your call to let others know who they are dealing with. If you choose not to do so, well, okay...you're not posting messages that border on trollism. If you were, I wouldn't be wasting my time with a reply. ;-) 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
|
#66
August 14th 03, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#68
August 14th 03, 03:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes: But you know Jim even if they did prepare, A LOT FAILED, it was really an exercise in who could overcome the nerves. My sources tell me that the pass rate has been about 2/3 for years and years. I don't know how true that is. I do know that it's a good thing the exam sessions are more accessible than in those times. I recall that one of the major complaints some hams had about incentive licensing was the travel expense and time. Something like 1/6 of the ham population back then were Conditionals. Something like 1/3 of the hams of the '60s had never been to an FCC office exam (Novice, Tech and Conditional were all by mail). None of the IL proposals included making the Advanced or Extra available by mail. For my money, the *best* system was that of the late '70s and very early '80s. FCC examiners did all the testing and exam preparing, and there were office sessions. BUT, if a ham group could guarantee a certain number of folks wanting tests (I think the quororm/minyan was 10) then FCC would send out an examiner. Most big hamfests had the FCC "traveling road show" giving exams. Reagan's budget cuts ended all that. I had to take a 90 mile train ride to and from to take my test. I was 13 at the time, and my mother came along. We spent the night at my aunt and uncles. That's why I said I was lucky. At 13 it was a mile walk to K3NYT's house for the Novice, and at 14 a subway ride. Nobody went with me, but those were different times. And since we were school kids, we were used to taking tests. Years later I realized it was the 'original incentive licensing'. He stern words were " You better pass this thing the first time, we ain't doing this again". I nicknamed her 'Old Sarge'...but never to her face.. hi. Sure do miss her. I hear ya! I recall that the Philly office gave exams on Monday thru Wednesday, and I think there were no code tests on Wednesday. There was no way a kid would be allowed to miss school for a ham exam back then. So all testing had to be done in the summer, or over Xmas break if the holiday didn't fall on the wrong day. With the 30 day retest rule and school getting out in mid-June, there were at most three chances per summer or four chances per year - tops. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#69
August 14th 03, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#70
August 14th 03, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message The end result, though, was that most hams went to the exams extremely overprepared. Wasn't worth taking a chance on failing. 73 de Jim, N2EY But you know Jim even if they did prepare, A LOT FAILED, it was really an exercise in who could overcome the nerves. Absolute fact! I had to take a 90 mile train ride to and from to take my test. I was 13 at the time, and my mother came along. We spent the night at my aunt and uncles. Years later I realized it was the 'original incentive licensing'. He stern words were " You better pass this thing the first time, we ain't doing this again". I nicknamed her 'Old Sarge'...but never to her face.. hi. Sure do miss her. Hee! I was brought up in the same area where Jim lived, the FCC office was only a trolley & an elevated ride away so neither of us had to walk ten miles uphill both ways in blizzards to take the exams. My Mom was brought up under well-heeled circumstances and had an older brother whom she often referred to as a "ham radio operator". I never met him because he passed away young around 1922 long before I was born. He had a whole room full of radio gear and had, as she explained it, the "first radio tubes in town". I suspected for a long time that he was an SWL type, not a ham. Time marched on and it got to be time for me to take my Novice exam, I was 15-16 and roamed the rails at will by then. I told Mom I was going downtown to take the gummint test to become a ham radio operator. "That's nice dear, I don't remember Joseph taking a test though. Be home for dinner" and that was the end of my folk's involvement to that point. Until I actually got on the air and tore up every TV set on the block. Then it became "Joseph didn't do that, turn that thing off!" Oops. Thus it was that I became the "80M Midnite Stalker", I only got on the air after midnite when the TV stations were broadcasting test patterns and/or shut down. We have a nickname for our Mom too. She has four sets of X-Ray eyes, can hear whispers six blocks away and has radar the Navy would kill for. We got away with *NOTHING*. The best way to get any of her ten grandchildren back in line was to threaten to call Spooky Old Alice and have her swoop in on her broom and deal with them. OhYeah it worked! So for decades now she's been known universally as The Spook, or just "Spook" or "Spooky". Her e-mail address was . She'll be 90 in a couple weeks. She spends a lot of time in what we call "Alice's World" these days but she's still kickin'. Dan/W4NTI w3rv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #665 | Dx | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #649 | Dx | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #649 | Dx | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #649 | General | |||
| Do Hams get 11 Meters Back | General | |||
Linear Mode
