On 5 Sep 2003 05:31:26 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:


Bob Brock wrote in message . ..



If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.



Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.

Your reading comprehension problem is duly noted.

On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens
are nothing more than jumping thru hoops

Bob,

If you're bothering to argue with Bruce....

I'm beginning to understand him better. :-)

In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think
that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the
questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?

You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to
memorize the correct sequence were you?

The point is that the level of UNDERSTANDING required to pass the writtens
today is a lot less than it would be if the actual Q&A were not made public.

His contention was the learning was not required. I've shown him
where it is required and a very similar system is used in a validated
educational system.

I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was
to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually
in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was
finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives
and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you
know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those
objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn.
So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those
objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems.

OK, fine.

Did they KNOW, from Day 1, that the test they would be taking would consist of
the exact questions and answers you gave them on Day 1?

They did if the believed me when I told them.

Was the passing grade 74%?

For most subjects, 70% was passing. However, after academic training
was completed, the employee was required to pass an ETQS performance
based test prior to certification.

Was there a penalty for wrong answers?

The lost points on the exam...we didn't beat them or anything like
that. ;-)

We didn't
play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on
something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them
to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing
mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives.

Nobody's saying the tests should go beyond the stated objectives.

No amount of academic training is going to make someone proficient at
performing tasks. Only experience actually doing it will make that
happen.

That worked very well in a nuclear environment.

I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety.

Mistakes are not acceptable.

We maintained a SALP
1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for
quite a while.

Were the employees tested once at the beginning of their employment at the
plant, and never again? Or was continuing education an integral part of that
environment?

Academic training and testing was a one time affair. Performance
based retesting was annual.

Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,
but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that.

Not a question of complexity.

In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or
they don't pass the test.

Not all hams take formal classes - in fact, most probably don't.

In the bad old days, the FCC published a study guide that listed, in essay
form, the type of questions and typical solutions that would be found on the
tests. For example, there were questions about Ohm's Law for a DC circuit and
how to solve them. Any prospective ham knew he/she would be expected to know
how to solve E = I/R and P = IE problems, resistors in series, parallel and
series-parallel, etc. And anybody who had a basic UNDERSTANDING of that stuff
would have no problem on those test questions.

But the actual Q&A were not made public. Today, with the actual Q&A in hand,
less understanding is required.

That's what bothers some folks.

As I said in a previous post in another thread, regulatory agencies
are not democracies. Sometimes they do things that I don't like.
When that happens I have two choices...conform or boycott.

Consider this: Today, the test for Tech is 35 questions from a published pool.
Most of those questions are on regulations, with some operating practices,
theory and safety stuff. Yet the license granted for passing that test gives
alla amateur privileges above 30 MHz, including the authorization to design,
build, repair, align, modify and most of all operate transmitters of up to 1500
W power output on 'meat cooking frequencies' as WK3C puts it. There is no
separate safety testing nor ongoing education - someone can get all of the RF
exposure questions wrong and still pass.

Do you think that the test and its methods are really adequate for the
privileges granted?

No I don't. In addition to dropping the code requirement, I would
like to see the academic testing made much harder with a performance
based test included. However, that's not going to happen.

FCC does. In fact, back in 2000 they lowered the written requirement for the
Tech license by almost half.

See my above comment regarding regulatory agencies. I can see where
they are coming from though. They have limited budget and ham radio
is a very small part of their plate.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:58:06 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

Then what do you think that they test for?

Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions.

Provided that the questions cover the things that you want the person
to know, this isn't an issue.

On 5 Sep 2003 05:32:42 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 18:17:10 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do. Afterall, I've
boycotted General and above for about 9 years now because of
antiquated requirements.



So by your logic I should have, as a VE, boycotted administering no-code Tech tests? You
sure demonstrate
where you're coming from.
Welcome to the house of code haters, you fit right in.

I'd prefer that it be called the list of long time code haters.

Sez it all!


You're so binary. Take a few courses in logic and decision making.
It would help you immensely.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:55:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for
HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due
to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get
thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last sentance.

Kim W5TIT


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.

WA8ULX wrote:
Then what do you think that they test for?


Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are
nothing more than jumping thru hoops

What the heck is "Memozizing"? Man, what a third grade education
will do for you.

Bob Brock wrote:

I didn't say that I boycotted any ham. I said that I boycotted a
licensing structure that I disagreed with. I'll QSO with any ham on
any band that we are both licensed to operate on. I even learned
code, but I won't upgrade until the requirement that I disagree with
is removed.

Not very interested in Ham radio eh?

Bob Brock wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:



Bob Brock wrote in message . ..




If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.


I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

Lessee, Bob. You qoute me as saying:

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

And next you ask me:

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


I wanted to get those two sentences right beside each other so you
could see that I never said you said such a thing.

We play rough in here, but we do expect people to make sense.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Guess you never heard of leading questions, eh? And that is exactly
what you're trying to do.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:
On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:


That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

Bull****, Prove it.


See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.

What number was claimed? What number is "reasonable approximation?

If you just come in here to vent aimlessly, eventually no one will play
with you.

- Mike KB3EIA -