|
Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
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. :-) He's been asked to at least turn his spellchecker on. Refuses. That tells ya something.... 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. Which is obviously an invalid contention. Proved wrong many times. My contention is different. I've shown him where it is required and a very similar system is used in a validated educational system. Similar but not equivalent. 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. OK, fine. 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. There ya go. Not the same system at all. Passing the written tests was only the first step. In amateur radio without code tests, it would be the only step. Was there a penalty for wrong answers? The lost points on the exam...we didn't beat them or anything like that. ;-) Sorry - "test score penalty". Like in the SATs, where, on 5 choice multiple guess questions, a right answer is 5 points, a wrong answer is -1 point, and no answer is 0 points. Eliminates any benefit from random guessing. 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. And the class was how many hours? 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. Bingo! And the closest thing we have to a performance test in amateur radio is...the Morse code test. What's left of it. That worked very well in a nuclear environment. I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety. Mistakes are not acceptable. Yet they happen. I live about 100 miles from Three Mile Island. 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. There ya go! Continuing education and skill development is an integral part of that environment. 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. Of course! Sometimes they do things that I don't like. When that happens I have two choices...conform or boycott. There's a third choice: Work to get them to change their minds and the rules. 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. Nor do I. 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. Probably not. It will never ever happen if hams don't ask for it, though. And you can count on this: Propose harder written tests and other performance-based tests, and there will be opposition for exactly the same reasons some people oppose the code tests. 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. The FCC does not spend one cent on training hams. Nor do they spend very much on testing and test generation - volunteer hams do almost all of that. All FCC does in connection with license testing is process completed applications after the VEs have done most of the work, and approve questions generated by the QPC folks. We could have all better written exams and different performance tests without it costing FCC anything. But it goes against the fashion. And the "Smith chart effect" opposition would kick in, guaranteed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... 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. Real hams will talk to anyone who is duly licensed under the rules and regulations of their own governing body. Now if someone proves himself a lid in the course of QSO, naturally we will bow out but only if the person has demonstrated that he actually is a lid. Besides it's seldom been foreign operators who have been a problem. The problem is right here in this country. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... 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 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? Both the pool AND answers are published. Let's take a typical question: What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz? Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is unable to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for operating Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... 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. I think it is because retention of the material is minimal when rote memorizing for a test. I couldn't tell you anything that was on the tests I took--because the material was not learned, it was memorized. No examples of application, no scenarios for cause and affect, etc. Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... 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. Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic. I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... 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. Whattya think Dick? This person comes in here, asks incredible slippery slope/leading questions but won't answer them, thinks that "reasonable approximations" are numbers, and then brags about not upgrading because: From Bob Brock Afterall, I've From Bob Brock boycotted General and above for about 9 years now From Bob Brock because of antiquated requirements. This sounds like one of the principled people that Carl speaks of who won't go beyond technician because they don't believe in the Morse test. Is this typical of Carl's new people? - Mike KB3EIA Possibly, Mike. I know you didn't ask me, but I can't help but make the statement that if even so, it would be nice for you to be astute enough not to roll everyone into your neat little package. Bob may be the kind of person you allude to, I don't know; he will have to speak to that with you. But, damned few people who don't like CW have avoided/boycotted higher class licensure until CW went away. In fact, I know no one like that. So, like I said, it would be intellectual of you to keep from using the broad paintbrush. Dick's is glued to his hand, so I don't even consider that he has the intellect to achieve such a lofty goal. Kim W5TIT |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: . We play rough in here, but we do expect people to make sense. Hey Mike, I hadn't givern it any thought, but you've had most excellent preparation, what with being an longtime Hockey type! Way to go! We get our educations in the strangest places, sometimes! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:56:41 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: 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 - If no value was given, why are you guys asking for proof of something that wasn't said? I do understand though. I asked a question and that was turned into a postion that needed justifying, so I realize that there are some serious reading comprehension problems here I sure hope that some of the people who have replied to me can send Morse a lot better than they can read english. Hmmmmm. As I see it, the only thing Bob's gotten right yet is that he, indeed, see me say I was leaving the newsgroup; although I'm not sure I said I would never return...but even so, I'll give him that. Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:35:08 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: 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. Hey Kim I don't think we can apply the regular rules of logic to this one! - Mike KB3EIA - If your regular rules of logic include making up a postion and then asking someone who didn't support it to justify it, I'd have to agree with you. All you have to do is show me where I said it. What's the problem Mike. You're dancing all around it, but you just can't seem to do. Why is that? Who said you said it, Bob. Let's start from there. Square one. WHO SAID you said it? Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits like you sure isn't it. Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful! Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message This sounds like one of the principled people that Carl speaks of who won't go beyond technician because they don't believe in the Morse test. Is this typical of Carl's new people? - Mike KB3EIA Possibly, Mike. I know you didn't ask me, but I can't help but make the statement that if even so, it would be nice for you to be astute enough not to roll everyone into your neat little package. For the purposes of the group, I don't think it's too bad an idea to try to find out a few things about this one. Here is a person that claims to know Morse code, but has refused to test for it for nine years. This would appear to be the mythical person that avoids Ham radio because of the evil Morse code (emphasis mine) that The prez of NCI speaks of. I say appears to be, because we have a person that comes in here like gangbusters, manages to annoy a lot of us, and uses argument techniques mostly designed to p**s us off, not to make a point. I personally think this person is just a troll, and not a very good troll either. Bob may be the kind of person you allude to, I don't know; he will have to speak to that with you. Hehe, won't happen now. But, damned few people who don't like CW have avoided/boycotted higher class licensure until CW went away. In fact, I know no one like that. Correct, and that is a big part of my decision that this is just a third rate troll. I like to come in here and have a good disagreement with people, but his posts do not constitute a good disagreement. You've seen it yourself - the odd leading questions, the asking of all sorts of quewstions, followed by a refusal to answer any, and outrageous little things such as assigning numerical value to non-numerical statements. All things calculated to get an indignant response. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Bob Brock" wrote in message ... 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 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? Both the pool AND answers are published. Let's take a typical question: What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz? Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is unable to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for operating Dee D. Flint, N8UZE You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized for the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made that the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas. All of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great. Kim W5TIT What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based. |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:41:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . 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. I think it is because retention of the material is minimal when rote memorizing for a test. I couldn't tell you anything that was on the tests I took--because the material was not learned, it was memorized. No examples of application, no scenarios for cause and affect, etc. Kim W5TIT So, instead of the continual code/no-code debate, why aren't these issues discussed here? If the test pool questions are such that the requred areas of knowledge aren't addressed, changing those questions (or perhaps the testing itself) would be an outstanding subject to be discussed here. However, it's not usually discussed because all threads lead to the code thing. I have my own view on the code issue and it's not going to change anymore than anyone else is going to change theirs. Our minds are made up. However, I think that people on both sides of that particular issue see areas where they would agree that the actual testing needs change. |
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:11:19 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . 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. This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. That's a ridiculous approach as your boycott does absolutely nothing to change the situation. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Call it what you like. I weighed the benefit of HF against conforming with a requirement that I didn't agree with. I felt that by participating I was helping it to continue. There are a lot of hoops that I would be willing to jump through to get HF privileges. Code isn't one of them. Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the easy way out. |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: 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. Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic. I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion. Kim W5TIT From elsewhere in the thread... [I said] 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. [Dick Carroll said] Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it. -------------------------------------- I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say so now and I'll apologize. |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:21:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits like you sure isn't it. Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful! Kim W5TIT OK Kim, I'll keep you in suspense no more. Whether some like to admit it or not, the senseless Morse Code debate will soon be history. I'm here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio, set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe levels. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. If they don't know enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency. It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it. It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully, with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips with some real issues. I'm hopeful, but not expectant. |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:36:57 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: 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? Where did I say that Mike. Do you always have this much trouble with facts? However refusing to upgrade shows that your hate for code exceeds your love of ham radio. While it's your choice, it seems pretty silly to me. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... BTW, here is why I learned Morse. Ironic isn't it? http://www.google.com/groups?q=code+...icy+autho r:b ob+author:brock&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&a s_miny=1981&as_maxd=5&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2001&selm= 34c35790.2985325%40news.hi s.com&rnum=2 Over the last couple of years, I have made a few posts about my feelings that code should not be a requirement for access to HF frequencies. While I have not changed my mind on that position, I do have a question/request from the pro-coders in the NG. Recently an amature radio operator in my area was operated on for a growth in his throat. The operation left him without a voice and he has been using Morse Code on one of the local repeaters at about 5 WPM. Because of this, I now want to learn code so that I can understand what he is saying. So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. I would be more than happy to help anyone upgrade but no one has ever taken me up on the offer. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: Both the pool AND answers are published. And how do we convince FCC to change that? Let's take a typical question: What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz? I assume you mean "half wave"... What kind of half wave dipole? Made of wire or tubing? Of uniform thickness or tapering? In free space or near other objects? The answer depends on a bunch of things! Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is unable to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for operating Exactly! Now suppose we rewrite the question to: "What is the formula for computing the length of a half-wave dipole for 14.240 MHz, if the dipole is made of #10 wire and is in free space?" The person being tested then memorizes the formula from the choices in the pool but doesn't necessarily know how to use it. Same problem. For another example, knowing that E = IR and P = EI doesn't guarantee that someone will have the sense to realize that they should not try to use 50 feet of #18 zip cord to connect a 100 watt transceiver to its 13.8 volt power supply. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Bob Brock
writes: I'm here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio, set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe levels. The test pools are under constant revision. Anyone can submit proposed Q&A to the QPC for consideration. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. Then we'd need rig-specific licenses. And what would you do about homebrew rigs like mine? If they don't know enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency. Now that makes sense! But such things are already addressed in the question pools. The problem is that what needs to change is the test methodology. By lumping all of the subjects into a one-size-fits-all written test, prospective hams can have huge holes in their knowledge and still pass because of strenghts in other areas. One answer to that is subelements. The big problem is convincing FCC that testing at such a level is needed. For more than 25 years, FCC's view towards amateur radio testing is to reduce the license requirements and make the licenses easier to get, not harder. That's one of the reasons some folks defend the code test so diligently - they know that if it goes, it will not be replaced by any other test, nor will the test methods used for the written be improved. It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it. Morse will continue to be a major part of amateur radio with or without a test. The test, however, is symbolic of the changes that have been ongoing for a long time. It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully, with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips with some real issues. I'm hopeful, but not expectant. I think you will find that the exact same problems will arise in connection with any move to increase license requirements. The "Smith chart solution" post in another thread is only half in jest. There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing, saying the Tech test is too hard. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Bob Brock
writes: I weighed the benefit of HF against conforming with a requirement that I didn't agree with. I felt that by participating I was helping it to continue. How is participating in the test helping the requirement to continue? There are a lot of hoops that I would be willing to jump through to get HF privileges. Code isn't one of them. To each his own. Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the easy way out. Or consider this: Which do you think is more convincing to FCC as a reason to remove Element 1: - The person who says "I won't upgrade until that test is removed" or - The person who says "I took the test, passed it, yet I think there is no reason for that test to exist any more." 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: 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. Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic. I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion. Kim W5TIT From elsewhere in the thread... [I said] 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. [Dick Carroll said] Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it. -------------------------------------- I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say so now and I'll apologize. Nope, I don't. But for goodness sake, don't apologize. Good grief. You've nothing to be apologetic about--'least not the way I see it. And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil says. They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling men. Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:21:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits like you sure isn't it. Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful! Kim W5TIT OK Kim, I'll keep you in suspense no more. Whether some like to admit it or not, the senseless Morse Code debate will soon be history. I'm here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio, set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe levels. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. If they don't know enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency. It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it. It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully, with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips with some real issues. I'm hopeful, but not expectant. This newsgroup is not the place to find intellectual, even-handed debate, Bob. You're way off base with your concept if you think it is. It just isn't. QRZ, eHam.net, or others maybe, but not this one... And, lose the idea that the CW thing is going to die--it's not. If you are that serious about wanting to change the wheel, then get involved heavily in the ARRL and W5YI. Use those venues to affect change; but you'd better be willing to take giant baby steps at a time--and I don't think you're that serious. That's not an insult--few people have the fortitude, time, and stamina it takes to turn a wheel. I tried for four years--and most of my free time. Didn't work. Giant baby steps=hugely small steps at a time. Kim W5TIT |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:08:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . BTW, here is why I learned Morse. Ironic isn't it? http://www.google.com/groups?q=code+...icy+autho r:b ob+author:brock&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&a s_miny=1981&as_maxd=5&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2001&selm =34c35790.2985325%40news.hi s.com&rnum=2 Over the last couple of years, I have made a few posts about my feelings that code should not be a requirement for access to HF frequencies. While I have not changed my mind on that position, I do have a question/request from the pro-coders in the NG. Recently an amature radio operator in my area was operated on for a growth in his throat. The operation left him without a voice and he has been using Morse Code on one of the local repeaters at about 5 WPM. Because of this, I now want to learn code so that I can understand what he is saying. So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. I would be more than happy to help anyone upgrade but no one has ever taken me up on the offer. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If you had looked at the google link, you would have seen that was a copy of a post from about 6 years ago. You're a little late. |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:53:04 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: Dee D. Flint wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message some snippage So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. Hey Dee (church lady voice here) Why.... could it be........a TROLL? (church lady voice off) You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and don't forget to change the story whenver possible. - Mike KB3EIA - Damn, a pair so dummies when I don't have anyone to paly cards with. |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Both the pool AND answers are published. And how do we convince FCC to change that? Let's take a typical question: What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz? I assume you mean "half wave"... What kind of half wave dipole? Made of wire or tubing? Of uniform thickness or tapering? In free space or near other objects? The answer depends on a bunch of things! That is of course true but at least knowing the basic formula gives the new ham a place to start even though there are additional factors that should be considered. Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is unable to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for operating Exactly! Now suppose we rewrite the question to: "What is the formula for computing the length of a half-wave dipole for 14.240 MHz, if the dipole is made of #10 wire and is in free space?" The person being tested then memorizes the formula from the choices in the pool but doesn't necessarily know how to use it. Same problem. As above, at least the new ham has a place to start. With the "just memorize the specific answer" approach, he/she has no place to begin. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Brock writes: Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the easy way out. Or consider this: Which do you think is more convincing to FCC as a reason to remove Element 1: - The person who says "I won't upgrade until that test is removed" or - The person who says "I took the test, passed it, yet I think there is no reason for that test to exist any more." 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd certainly give a lot more credence to the guy that's done it rather than the one who hasn't. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message some snippage So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. Hey Dee (church lady voice here) Why.... could it be........a TROLL? (church lady voice off) You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and don't forget to change the story whenver possible. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes but changing it within the same posting would signify that the troll is of very low quality. Ought send him back to troll school. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message some snippage So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. Hey Dee (church lady voice here) Why.... could it be........a TROLL? (church lady voice off) You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and don't forget to change the story whenver possible. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes but changing it within the same posting would signify that the troll is of very low quality. Ought send him back to troll school. Well Dee, when a person does that, they are always right! 8^). I agree about the troll thing. Or at least send him somewhere. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... Hey, I have only used your own words, DICK. Are they not facts? ROFLMAO!!!! He's so confused... Kim W5TIT Kim, go back and read the part about how he only stopped VEing in 94 AFTER the restructured Extra came about. Hihi. He stopped in 1994 because he hates No-Code Technicians. The restructured Extra came much, much later. What's this pea-brain been smoking? |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:46:31 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: 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. Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic. I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion. Kim W5TIT From elsewhere in the thread... [I said] 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. [Dick Carroll said] Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it. -------------------------------------- I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say so now and I'll apologize. Nope, I don't. But for goodness sake, don't apologize. Good grief. You've nothing to be apologetic about--'least not the way I see it. And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil says. They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling men. Kim W5TIT Since I apparently misunderstood you, please accept my apology. |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:41:21 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:36:57 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: 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? Where did I say that Mike. Do you always have this much trouble with facts? However refusing to upgrade shows that your hate for code exceeds your love of ham radio. While it's your choice, it seems pretty silly to me. Well, if you were me, that would be relevalent... |
|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:52:07 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:21:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits like you sure isn't it. Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful! Kim W5TIT OK Kim, I'll keep you in suspense no more. Whether some like to admit it or not, the senseless Morse Code debate will soon be history. I'm here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio, set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe levels. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. If they don't know enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency. It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it. It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully, with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips with some real issues. I'm hopeful, but not expectant. This newsgroup is not the place to find intellectual, even-handed debate, Bob. You're way off base with your concept if you think it is. It just isn't. QRZ, eHam.net, or others maybe, but not this one... And, lose the idea that the CW thing is going to die--it's not. If you are that serious about wanting to change the wheel, then get involved heavily in the ARRL and W5YI. Use those venues to affect change; but you'd better be willing to take giant baby steps at a time--and I don't think you're that serious. That's not an insult--few people have the fortitude, time, and stamina it takes to turn a wheel. I tried for four years--and most of my free time. Didn't work. Giant baby steps=hugely small steps at a time. Kim W5TIT Kim, within a year the only debate in here about CW will be about the consequences of it no longer being required. The whining will be terrible for awhile, but like the no-code tech discussions, they will eventually disappear. However, you are right about one thing. This is not the place to look without heavy filtering of those who are incapable of logical discussion. I think I'll hang around for a while just to watch the endgame. |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 17:25:09 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: Dee D. Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message some snippage So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade? I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access. This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio and this is the only way that he can do it. Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This is very confusing. Hey Dee (church lady voice here) Why.... could it be........a TROLL? (church lady voice off) You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and don't forget to change the story whenver possible. - Mike KB3EIA - Yes but changing it within the same posting would signify that the troll is of very low quality. Ought send him back to troll school. Well Dee, when a person does that, they are always right! 8^). I agree about the troll thing. Or at least send him somewhere. - Mike KB3EIA - I thought that I was dealing with people who had a little knowledge about the internet and how to click on links. I was mistaken. Go back to sleep now... |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:31:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized for the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made that the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas. All of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great. Kim W5TIT What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based. There's nothing at all wrong with having some part of the test be based on something related to performance--other than CW; comment on that in a moment--if there could be a generally agreed upon topic. I think establishing something like a digital station would be more appropriate than building an antenna, because I think what should be tested is something everyone will do at one point or another. While not everyone may dabble in digital, APRS, SSTV, or whatever, everyone will have to establish a radio set up at some point or another. The best would be a sucessful mobile installation, but doing testing outside just wouldn't be feasible. On your latter comment, be careful how you word things in this debate: the test is performance based right now. It baseed on one's ability to understand CW, and that is performance. Only if they know how to connect the antenna to the radio. ;-) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... OK Brainless dip****. when you finally get to foaming at themouth so that you can't carry on even an IRRational conversation time has come to dump you back on your sorry arse into the sewer, from whence ye came...right back with The TIT, Loosegoose Lennie and Brock the Crock BYE! Stay gone a LONG time !!! PLONK! ROFLMAO!!! Except DICK has no idea how to actually filter someone. What's the difference whether he dialogues with a poster through a direct response or as the result of a re. Good grief, DICK, at least get some balls to go with...oh, well maybe that's not your namesake... Kim W5TIT |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:43:32 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: To use Hans' spelling: for crying out phucking loud, Bob. Either you literally have just decided to pop in and don't read any other time; or you really are just trolling. This newsgroup runs several, *several* topics at any given time. You can choose whatever ones you would like and even create your own. But, you aren't going to change the debate on CW and no one ever will. I just laughed hysterically at another post of yours, where you said, "thank goodness it will all be ending soon." That's ludicrous. You're either young or blissful if you think the CW debate is going to end or go away. Anyone who can read the news knows which way code testing is going to go. The only real question is when. I see that Oz has decided that they don't have to wait until 2005 to dump it. Gee...what a suprise. Bob. You're young, aren't you? I can almost tell that by your optimistic attitude about the CW issue. You have to realize, Bob, that the CW issue for the drunken-type ramblers is not a CW issue at all. It's a value issue--that they value some mysterious talent they see in their ability and desire to use CW. It isn't about regulations, it isn't about the FCC, it isn't about whether it is a testing element or not. In their eyes, they will always be above anyone else not of their ilk. We know that's wrong. Others who have far more logic and brains and the capacity to think straight know that's wrong. But, they do not. So, their incessant whining and arguing and condemning and blaming will go on into eternity, while the rest of ham radio--the real part--moves on, has fun, helps out, and grows. I have to be pretty darned "professional" during the day and getting down to another level sure is great fun! Oh, I come and go. I have many more parts to my life that are more pressing sometimes than ham radio or the newsgroup, but I won't go into them. It sounds like the serious hams who want to discuss real ham things have lives too. Absolutely. The only reason I happened upon the newsgroup again is I've been designing and building an MS Access application for use by a company. I am on the computer so much at work that it really isn't a draw here at home. When I was on before, we'd actually just gotten the internet connection, and a second computer so we didn't have to "share" :GRIN: and I would load up the newsgroup while I was cruising around. For this project that I did here, we went out and bought a new computer with Office XP Pro, Office Pro, TurboCAD, Dreamweaver, and Crystal Reports. This MS Access application turned into an all-out total package for the company and it's challenged some of my abilities--which I really dig because it's meant growing some new knowledge and that's never bad! At any rate, the project is now winding down, save some tweaks and mods. I don't know if I'll keep coming to the newsgroup. I don't have much to do on the computer at home; I'm much more an outside or home decorating person than I am a internet junkie (hubby's the internet junkie). And, heck--now we're looking at new homes so that's bound to keep me distracted. But, like I said, after the shock that there are people who act the way they do here in this newsgroup, it becomes nothing but fun and entertainment to draw them out--well, except for DICK who can't directly respond to anyone who's smarter than he--into a tirade of emotion. The occasional half-serious-to-serious discussion is great. BTW, the last time that I read anything is this ng was when you posted your goodbye to the group way back when. You see, this is a newsgroup that you can leave for months or years and come back exactly where you left off because the same things are being said over and over again. Oh yeah. You got that right. For those folks whom you depict above, all one need do is imagine the local bar-and-grill/pub, where Johnny and Drake and Chuck have hung forever. One walks in, could be 15 years later, and there they a still on the same stool, slumped over, arguing the same damned things they've argued for years. Pathetic, I know, but it's no different than watching a car race, not for the winner but to see what accidents we can see. Personally, I kinda like your callsign. I hope that you can live up to it. I couldn't care less whether you like it or not, Bob. I don't care if anyone else likes it or not. It's personal between and a group of friends and the rest of the world be damned. And that debate has been had and made many times here; and it's coming up again--Winter is coming. Kim W5TIT So, basically you're saying that the ng is stuck and useless except for a distraction. Absolutely. The only folks you'll ever see in any half-way decent debates in this newsgroup are Jim/N2EY; Brian Kelley; Hans--once in a while; and the occasional visitors who'll bring up something happenstance into this newsgroup and figure out real quick that there's so few serious participants that it's just not worth it. That's a shame, but I tend to agree with you. Oh, I don't think it's a shame...'least not any more. I kinda like it. I don't know where you work or what have to do for a living but I get plenty of serious, mentally challenging, stressful distractions at work. I think the transition I used to look for here was a seriuos-but-not-mentally-challenging exchange. Well, that's not going to happen ;) so I just shed all the "stuff" and decide to be as basal as I can possibly be--unless there's something that I can contribute to an intellectual discussion. And, let's face it, I'm just not into ham radio for the intellectualism of it so most of those discussions go way up over my head and I am bored to tears with the idea of learning enough about whatever is that's being discussed...!! Reading those discussions is like just looking at the cover of that mag that ARRL puts out--the Techie one. Still though, I think that if a few hams wanted to discuss stuff that is actually policy related with regards to enforcement, policy, etc. it could become a useful group with a lot of filtering. That possibility is insidiously redundant, i.e., can happen anywhere. There's nothing stopping you from doing that right here--a new thread--and completely ignoring the posts to it that have nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with one's being on top of their imaginative mountain. You could also start it--well, anywhere. Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com