RadioBanter - where PCTA's fail in logic

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - where PCTA's fail in logic (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/26882-re-where-pctas-fail-logic.html)

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news:su9eb.37445
Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated
effort,
challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so
on)
is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the
ARS.

Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't
give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only
want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show
of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't
any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill, I give a great big hoot about the regulatory stuff. I assume you're
referring to the regulatory stuff wrt "making sense," since you appear to
discount any form of testing which serves no "regulatory purpose." Exchange
"only" with "in addition to" and we're in agreement. ;-)

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

What about thier constant use of the term "CBplusser" and
so forth...

There is only one person who uses that term. He also claims to be 305 years
old.

What is it with the application of one person's pejorative to everyone?

You mean like the person who called us 'nazis'?

That's a real good example! We have a whole spectrum of people with a
whole spectrum of opinions in here. And some are too busy stereotyping
to actually find out what anthers true opinion is.

I've never called anyone a name here, and yet you and I are assigned the
infamous "they" and "their".

Of course.

In fact, if you really want to get certain people mad, *don't* call
them a name.

I find that not ever responding to their posts works pretty well!!

I don't know if THEY have kept up to date on ham
radio violation records, but the vast majority of code & rule violaters are
hams who've been in the hobby for many many years, have advanced licenses
(advanced, extra) and thus have passed morse code testing.

Your source, please? I read the "FCC enforcement letters", and there seems to
be a wide distribution of experience, license classes, etc.

One thing is quite obvious, though: the vast majority of enforcement actions
are against hams using voice modes. When's the last time a ham using CW in the
CW/data subbands was the target of an FCC enforcement action?

I did a little research project on this a year or so ago. No vast
majority of any license class as far as perps go. There were a bit more
of the higher classes, but not significantly so. Techs were real close,
and then there were the unlicensed. I'd have to say there was no
significant difference in the license class as far as rule violations go.

Remember too that HF violations are usually audible over a much wider
area than VHF/UHF violations. The W6NUT machine is a local/regional
problem, while 3950 and 14313 are much more widespread.

How many of the enforcement actions were against hams using CW in the
CW/data subbands?

The next one makes one.

The hams I
have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever
met. WHY? Because they KNEW where they came from, how nice it is
up here, and have thus a respect for the advancement into a more
serious hobby.

Some of the best and the worst hams I have known came from 11 meters.

The foulest mouths i've ever heard were on 75 meters ssb, and one ham
who's call I won't mention was denied advancement by hollingsworth HIMSELF
(you can look it up on ARRL records).. he lived at the time in conroe,
texas....
he use to get just slobbering drunk on the radio and really raise hell;
cussing,
insulting, playing music, everything.

And what mode was he using?

Ahem...

He passed the code requirements and
written exam to advance to an even higher license, but recieved a letter

from Hollingworth saying "you are not being given your upgrade, and

furthermore, never will until I recieve a written letter from you explaining
why you feel you DESERVE one."

Was he using CW to do all that?

THAT ham was a long time veteran ham who had already passed a
CW test. Therefore, any argument brought up that CW testing is
a "yahoo filter" as they call it is wrong. It doesn't stop any such thing.

He'd also passed several *written* tests on regulations and operating
practices. Those written tests didn't stop his behavior either. Shall we dump
the writtens because they are not a "yahoo filter" either?

No test can be a perfect "filter".

And never will be. There are incompetent and even evil doctors. And yet
they have one of the most rigorous entry requirements there are.

Exactly.

No requirements are needed to operate a transciever on HF.

?? I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence.

This is what my whole argument comes down to, Jim. There is ample
evidence that a person, even one who is less clever than most, can put
up a station, run some serious power, and come to no harm. People do it
on the 11 meter band all the time.

Even on the Ham bands, a person can buy a modern rig, pay people to
erect his or her antenna, and be on the air without doing anything but
reading the manual.

Things are not what they used to be.

That some people like to homebrew can be considered as irrelevant now
as the fact that some people like to use Morse Code CW. A person can use
the argument that "If a person likes to build their own equipment,
that's fine, but a person shouldn't have to be forced to test for
electronic theory. Why should a person have to know Ohms law when they
just want to run SSB or computer soundcard modes"?

In fact, modern radios could simply not allow themselves to transmit
out of band, (some may already do so) so who needs to know band edges?
Another thing not needed to test for.

Nothing is a foolproof filter, but the tests serve as one, both written
and Morse proficiency tests.

While some decry this as an elitist thing, it is no more so than any
testing regimen. We take tests to get into schools, graduate, drive a
car, and do many things in life.

I'm not talking about the Morse code test specifically - for the
purpose of the argument, throw it out and to hell with it.

What I am talking about is that we are at a juncture where we can go
one of both ways. We can toss the whole thing, and actually just have
people buy their licenses, or we can have some sort of minimal testing,
or we can have some meaningful testing, where the person demonstrates
some sort of proficiency and interest and has to put in some sort of
work to get their ticket. Some might also want the prospective ham to be
the equivalent of an RF engineer.

It's a whole spectrum of opinions.

We have to
decide how much knowledge is needed. My only wish is that the
requirements are enough that I know that the person is highly interested
in the service.

Hard to measure "interest".

Fun fact: a few years back, the FCC modified a General class ham's
license as part of an enforcement action so that he was limited to
using CW only.

Oh the horror!!! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...
Let's
find something worthwhile to discuss in this NG...like for example,
how do we refarm the subbands once there's no longer any need for 'em?

Not a useful discussion. Dropping the code test does not mean that there
will be no need for the existing subbands. If all 600,000+ US amateurs are
now eligible for HF operation and take advantage of that eligibility, the
bands could be really chaotic. The DX stations may very well hope we keep
the subbands in place. It will probably be even more necessary to continue
to keep the subbands and I would expect to see more emphasis placed on
following the voluntary band plans.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:45:17 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:

Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior to you. I don't
ever recall seeing anyone that advocates Morse saying they felt superior.

Perhaps you have a short memory, then, Dan. A search of Google or some
other UseNet archive would, I'm sure, turn up at least one thread from
circa July of this year where at least three of the PCTAs in this NG
were claiming exactly that. In fairness, I'll admit that I don't
recall you being one of them. Nevertheless, the attitude does exist
among some of the PCTAs who regularly post here.

I know I don't feel that way. However I do feel those that don't play on
CW
are missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having a
amateur license. But thats their loss not mine.

I feel that those who don't participate in public service work are
missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having an
amateur license. However, I don't go around advocating that hams be
required to do so, or that they be tested on their ability to do so as
a requirement of obtaining a license.

EXCELLENT point, John. Touche.

Kim W5TIT

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Kim" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...

But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a
clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE
should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin?

Nope.

I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by
contemporary
modern society" was implied.

Wasn't clear at all.

If not, the part about "get thier license"
pretty much
removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding.

The word is spelled "THEIR", Clint. Turn on your spellchecker if you
can't
remember it.

Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a
test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

that's what kim said.

No, she didn't.

And, btw, what makes you think Hans is "PCTA"?

Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that
the
part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am...

Oh well...

Musta caught me at an inference-compromised moment, Kim. It wasn't
clear to me when I read it.

However, you have since rectified the ambiguity, so that the statement
would now read something like:

"NO ONE who has passed the required tests should be kept out of the
ARS"

How's that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yeah.

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that
the
part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am...

Oh well...

Kim W5TIT

It is the fact that people think certain things are "implied" that keeps
the
lawyers mighty busy. These days, if something isn't stated, it isn't
considered part of the meaning or intent of the passage.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Well, these days there's a lot more ways of thinking than what you think ;)

Kim W5TIT

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..

With all this talk about children vs. adults and superior vs.
inferior, I can't help observing that insistence upon getting one's
way regardless of the consequences to themselves or others is a
personality trait that is generally observed in, shall we say, less
mature individuals.

I know what you mean, John.

Why, not too long ago I knew a fellow who "owned" an e mail
reflector that would grandiosly "ban" people from his list that didn't
share HIS specific opinions on things.

Some way to get in the last word, huh...???

It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument
undoubtedly seems quite childish.

Since this forum is about Amateur Radio FOR Amateur Radio
operators (realizing that it IS an open, unmoderated forum, of
course), it is irrelevent as to what "non-hams" think. No one,
regardless of thier position on ANY subject, "owes" it to anyone who
is NOT a licensed and participating operator, to explain each and evry
reason for ANY opinion.

If you are not experienced in a specific pursuit you shouldn't
insult those who are. For example I would not be found in a NASCAR
fan-club forum, nor in one dedicated to gardening...at least as
anything other than a passive reader. Unless you are ASKING for help,
it's a matter of common courtesy.

Steve, K4YZ

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..

The wake will undoubtedly be held here in rrap, where many will call
it the end of ham radio...(SNIP)

Actually it will only be the end of an era.

The .0003% of the Amateur community that espouse any opinion to
the contrary will go thier own way, and the other .0003% who
constantly deride them for THIER opinions will go thier way too.

And Amateur Radio, just like it has for the last 80+ years
already past, will go on.

Steve, K4YZ

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..

In fact, it looks to me as if the code test has one foot out the door
and the other on a banana peel, whether you or I or anyone else likes
it or not, so this entire debate in rrap is rather pointless. Let's
find something worthwhile to discuss in this NG...like for example,
how do we refarm the subbands once there's no longer any need for 'em?

Big mistake there, John.

Ironically, the ONLY two "CW Only" subbands in ANY US Amateur
allocation are in the 6 and 2 meter bands. Even more ironic is the
amount of time NCT folks have "debated" the need for CW on HF, yet not
a single person, NCT or otherwise, to my knowledge, has ever
challenged those VHF segments...

Loooooooong after the requirement for code testing has slipped
past us, there will be a lasting need for NARROWBAND subbands, John.
PACTOR, AMTOR, PSK31, RTTY, and a host of other digital modes populate
those segments. THOSE folks will be no more willing to face an influx
of voice operators than CW ops would be.

Furthermore, the elimination of code testing will NOT eliminate
the presence of code USERS for some time to come.

Once the code test has been eliminated, I expect we can see an
increase in not only voice users, but digital mode operation will
increase too. So while we can expect a gradual decrease in the number
of stations employing CW, we will simultaneously see an influx of
folks who will need those "digital" allocations.

So don't get your hopes up, KC2HMZ, that the end of code testing
will open 20 meters up from end to end for yakkity-yakers. The
dynamics of Amateur HF practice exceed the code issue significantly.

Steve, K4YZ