Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a problem? When are you making your first million/yr., DICK, or are you happy where you are? Kim W5TIT There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being happy where they are. But we get two different stories out of some people. Techs crying because they aren't getting HF privileges and Techs not upgrading because they are happy where they are. If the latter is the true case, then there is no need to make any changes in any portion of the test requirements and NCI has no reason to exist. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, they'll never get over it, they just gotta have it both ways. "We're happy with no code tech and VHF so stopp griping at us for not upgrading, but why don't they drop that infernal Morris code test so we can get our Extras and get on HF?" Dick I don't know any Tech+'s or, for that matter, any hams who think like that, DICK. Here's an invitation: If there is anyone, *anyone* at all on this newsgroup, who thinks they'd like to get on HF and will once the CW part of testing is done away with, then please submit your thoughts now. And, if there is anyone, *anyone* at all on this newsgroup who believes that they like the status of their class of license--in this case Tech/Tech+--and figures they'll stay at Tech+ because they like it and enjoy VHF to the exclusion of HF *until* they can get their HF privileges without CW testing, then please submit your thoughts now. Dick, I am telling you right now before anyone posts a thing: I don't think you'll find more than a couple of folks who think like you state above. I don't think you'll even find two. Yet, your broad paintbrush sees *everyone* who is a Tech/Tech+ thinking like YOU think. Kim W5TIT |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Leo" wrote in message .. . Paul, Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would not have missed it too.. Was it advertised in the magazine? If so, I don'rt recall seeing it! Hopefully, the ARRL won't try to pull the same stunt....whatever way the vote goes, it should fairly represent the wishes of the Amateur community, not a small (and perhaps biased??) sampling. 73, Leo Given that: 1) the ARRL's membership represents 25% of US licensees 1A) NCI's membership represents 0.5% of US amateur licensees.. and 2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time hams How do you know? Without membership data, this is pure speculation on your part. (Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed to keep them off of HF) Again, pure speculation. Without membership data, it's impossible to know how many members are of any license class. Even harder to discern is why some are members and some aren't. For example, I have heard many Techs say things like: - "$39 is too much money for the magazine" - "The ARRL is a national organization, and my focus is local and regional" - "QST is too technical" - "QST isn't technical enough" - "There's not enough stuff about what I'm interested in" ARRL's Morse code test policy is derived from what members want. If enough nocodetest hams join and elect directors who support their views, the policy will change. I would, even giving the ARRL credit for the best of intentions, submit that any survey of ARRL membership is unlikely to be TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams. I submit that any survey of NCI membership is unlikely to be TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , "Kim" writes: And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a problem? Nope. And I suspect that's why every ham isn't an Extra. If someone's interest doesn't include HF, VEing or a four-character call, there's not much reason to upgrade, is there? 73 de Jim, N2EY Agreed! But if it's so OK, why are they virtually all hounding both us and the FCC over the testing requirements? "Virtually all??!?" You gotta be kidding, Dick! In the seven years of its existence, NCI has gathered (at most) a few thousand members who are US hams - out of ~685,000 possibles, ~200,000 of whom are Technicians. And a lot of NCI members are neither newcomers nor Technicians. FCC got how many comments about restructuring that were from Techs who were against the code test? No more than 1,000. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|