**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:00:21 GMT, Keith
wrote:

I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael
Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment
Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun
for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses
the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart
and obtained guns at gun shows.
The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a
weapon of mass destruction with no test or license,

A shotgun is not a weapon of mass destruction.

Chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons are weapons of mass
destruction.

A shotgun is classified as "small arms" - even fully automatic small
arms are not weapons of mass destruction.


73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 23 Sep 2003 00:40:54 GMT, "Dick Carroll;"
wrote:


Far better to concentrate testing on operating - to include as many
modes as feasable. INCLUDING radiotelegraphy, **the second most used
mode in ham radio**.

It occurs to me that, after "making a legitimate withdrawal" as number
one, the second most used method of obtaining money from the bank
happens to be a felony.

It also occurs to me that in sports, they refer to the player(s) who
finish anywhere below #1 as the LOSERS.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John, I like the way you think.

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article et, Keith
writes:

I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael
Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment
Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun
for opening a CD account.

Keith:

I bought the DVD. Actually, it was a Winchester .270 cal. bolt-action
rifle.

My father has a .270 Win and it's a nice rifle. Wish I got one for
opening a bank account. Wished I lived in Colorado, too.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety
testing.


There's "the future".

73 de Jim, N2EY


Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on
rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any
of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in
detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating
practices for the licenses classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Good idea. When I passed the Basic test (Canadian licence, same type
of questions and format as the entry-level US one - Technician, I
think...?), I walked out of the room with two things: A licence.
And no real practical idea on how to operate a radio station. I had
the theory, and legally what not to do, but how to set up a station
and initiate a QSO? On-air procedures and etiquette? Missing details
galore....

I bought a used 2M HT and the RAC Operating Guide, downloaded a
repeater list, listened on-air for a while, and figured out how to get
through the first few QSOs. From there, the kind folks on the air
guided me through the process, overlooking my frequent errors. Trial
by fire. No I=E/R stuff to help me through here!

Going on HF was worse - passed the morse test, then...learning curve
again (and still - 6 months later) - some of the VHF knowledge worked,
but new skills were required. And the equipment is more complex to
set up and use than my HT....had to build an antenna (a Big Antenna
!), and go from there. And a dummy load. And an SWR meter. Etcetera.
Still learning, but the folks on 40M have been great, and got me up to
speed pretty quickly.

Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part
of the licence procedure. Not for the sake of testing , or making the
licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and
unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you
have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like
driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely
on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right
now......

And the best possible resource for creating a syllabus like that - the
experienced amateur user community. (not me - I'm still learning!
Maybe later....)

Just my .02....

73, Leo

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:24:06 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety
testing.


There's "the future".

73 de Jim, N2EY


Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on
rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any
of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in
detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating
practices for the licenses classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety
testing.


There's "the future".

73 de Jim, N2EY


Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on
rules and regs.

Not really. All questions and answers are filtered through the QPC and again
through the FCC. "Killer" Q&A can be rejected.

Then require people to take and pass that before taking any
of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in
detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating
practices for the licenses classes.

Better yet - split the test into different subelements and require a passing
grade in each. No getting all the regs questions wrong and all the theory
questions right (or vice versa) and still passing.

I suggested that in my comments to 98-143. FCC went the other way. Tells ya
somethin'.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Keith:

I bought the DVD. Actually, it was a Winchester .270 cal. bolt-action
rifle.

My father has a .270 Win and it's a nice rifle. Wish I got one for
opening a bank account. Wished I lived in Colorado, too.

Brian:

Ah, yes, Colorado. Beautiful country. However, with urban sprawl
happening everywhere in the state, and California-style liberal politics
gaining a foothold, with the high taxes that go with it, it's not exactly
a place I'd like to live anymore. It may be OK for now, but it is
going downhill faster than a bobsled.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety
testing.


There's "the future".

Jim:

Like it or not, we're definitely heading in that direction. I'd like to think
it's possible to hold the line somewhere, but in light of the fact that
abolition of the code testing requirement is almost a sure thing, the
rest of the dominoes will surely fall shortly thereafter. Once they do,
we'll most likely experience a major loss of spectrum allocations in
the ARS. Ironically, that will surely happen in the regions above
500 MHz, where there hasn't been any code testing at all for over
a decade.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other
radio) radio problem.



If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?


I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range. As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other
radio) radio problem.

Ryan,

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation.
You may have read it already.

My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather
that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to
years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment.

That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that
knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass
written tests.

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range.

I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're
wrong.

As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.

Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers.

73 de Jim, N2EY