|
Dick Carroll wrote
Hans, it's novel that you share the life view of a fella named Willie Sutton who said he robbed banks "Because that's where the money is". Dick, It's novel that you are so insecure in your life view that you must stoop to putting me in the same category as someone who steals things from other people. On second thought, I suspect you must have been drunk or on dope when you wrote that post. How else can I explain such a twisted and insulting interpretation of my remarks? Hans |
Mike Coslo wrote
Good post, and good argument, Hans. But I wonder if there is no place for pride of accomplishment? In my other hobby, I spent several years making a large telescope. It was an intense project, and took a lot of effort. In the end, I was rewarded with a wonderful, beautiful, and very high quality instrument. It won first place in the only competition I entered it in. Of course there's room for pride of accomplishment! You ought to see the walls of my shack covered with awards, the one of most proud of being "A-1 Operators Club". You ought to see the walls of my office covered with engineering and business related awards! You ought to see me beam when I come back off the lake..... well, you get the picture. But getting back to the tone of this thread, while I highly value my amateur license for the benefits it gives me (including trying to "accomplish" things to be proud of), acquiring the license itself was a pretty modest accomplishment. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Dick Carroll wrote
..... strange that you would attach no importance to how a ham got his license. Where did you dig up that gem of mis-information? You really must be on some chemical --- perhaps your diet Pepsi has been spiked. I have simply pointed out that the path to an amateur license is not (and never has been) particularly strenuous, and in most cases is a pretty modest accomplishment. It's what happens AFTER you qualify for a license which counts. For information on how I feel about current license qualifications, see my comments to the FCC. Go to http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb and click on the link (left of page) "FCC Comments". 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "Reality doesn't care what you believe." |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message Taking it back to the context of this thread, my amateur license or my drivers license or my fishing license have value to me based on the beneficial things I can do with them. The value is not related in any fashion to the 'cost' or 'effort' that it took to obtain the license. 73, de Hans, K0HB I agree with Hans 100%+ on this one ... the value is in what they let you do, not what you had to do to get them. Well, I wouldn't say so for everyone. Not that I feel all that warm and fuzzy about getting my drivers license, but there are many labors in my life that I do feel proud of. Probably just my disposition. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... (Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com... "N2EY" wrote The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration of the required qualifications, no more, no less. That's your point, Carl, not my point. OK ... but it's still my (valid) point. The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did. My point was simply that there are significant differences between the 1978 and 2003 situations, such as: - the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own transportation? paid any fees?). - the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass the 1978 tests. If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine. You can't change that situation anyway. Agreed ... but I reitterate "If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine." There is no "value added" in "making them work for it" Who said there was? LOTS of folks here have promoted the "everyone should have to WORK for their license "to prove their dedication, etc."" (I'm not saying YOU said that, but lots of folks have voiced that view ...) The point is that the 1978 class had a completely different situation from the 2003 class. ... if they have the knowledge they are qualified, period. So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required tests should be allowed into the ARS? Yes, unless they have some other disqualifying factor that would render them unsuitable to be an FCC licensee (past history of violations, etc.), but that's the FCC's call ... (and likely they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway, so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails) It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it took some investment of themselves to acquire. Maybe so, but it's not the FCC's business to determine how much someone "values" a ham license ... only to determine if they meet the minimum qualifications established. Besides, just because someone did the work of learning BEFORE they decided to become a ham doesn't mean they didn't still "do the work." Why should that (previously accomplished) work be "devalued" as some suggest??? 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Maybe so, but it's not the FCC's business to determine how much someone "values" a ham license ... only to determine if they meet the minimum qualifications established. Besides, just because someone did the work of learning BEFORE they decided to become a ham doesn't mean they didn't still "do the work." Why should that (previously accomplished) work be "devalued" as some suggest??? WHERE do you come up with some of this stuff??? Which points would you dispute? Do you believe the FCC has a responsibility to determine how much someone values a ham license? Do you look less favorably on those that learned electronics as a vocation and, therefore, excercised only minimal or no effort to pass the ham tests? Do you look less favorably on those that learned morse code as a vocation and, therefore, excercised only minimal or no effort to pass the ham tests? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... (Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com... "N2EY" wrote The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration of the required qualifications, no more, no less. That's your point, Carl, not my point. OK ... but it's still my (valid) point. You sort of contradict it later on (see below) The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did. My point was simply that there are significant differences between the 1978 and 2003 situations, such as: - the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own transportation? paid any fees?). - the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass the 1978 tests. If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine. You can't change that situation anyway. Agreed ... but I reitterate "If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine." Sure. But the claim was all about how the folks in '78 all got ham tickets and the ones in 2003 did not. I'm simply pointing out that it's ana apples and oranges comparison. Heck, the promise of a day's liberty and a free trip off-base in exchange for an hour of taking a test that was far below the level of what you did every day was a no-brainer. There is no "value added" in "making them work for it" Who said there was? LOTS of folks here have promoted the "everyone should have to WORK for their license "to prove their dedication, etc."" (I'm not saying YOU said that, but lots of folks have voiced that view ...) Folks say all kinds of things. Point is, no matter what you make the requirements, some will say they are too easy and others will say they're too much of a burden. The point is that the 1978 class had a completely different situation from the 2003 class. ... if they have the knowledge they are qualified, period. So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required tests should be allowed into the ARS? Yes, unless they have some other disqualifying factor that would render them unsuitable to be an FCC licensee (past history of violations, etc.), Good point! And that's the sort-of contradiction I was talking about. It's not just passing the test(s), but also not having certain disqualifying factors. but that's the FCC's call ... And that's where we part company with Kim's ideas - as I understand them, anyway. The whole "character" issue. You see, the tests are pretty objective in their methods. While we may not be crazy about multiple choice, it is 100% objective of method because there is one defined right answer and all the others are wrong. With methods like essays and fill-in-the-blank, a lot depends on the marker's judgement. But the question of disqualifying factors is entirely subjective. ("Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?" - Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restauraunt"). Almost any violation, including those unrelated to radio, can be a cause for FCC to deny a license. That's why they want a TIN, as I understand it. Don't pay your taxes or court-ordered child support? No ham license. (and likely they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway, so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails) It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it took some investment of themselves to acquire. Maybe so, but it's not the FCC's business to determine how much someone "values" a ham license ... only to determine if they meet the minimum qualifications established. Sure. The concern is, however, that making the licenses easier and easier to get may result in some folks not valuing them enough even to bother following the rules. You've been a ham since 1975, Carl - how do you think the current level of rules compliance (particularly in the area of operator on-air behavior, like jamming, cussing, failure to ID, etc.) compares with that of 1975? But what those qualifications should be is an endless debate. Even if the code test disappears, the content of the writtens will be debated. Just watch, Carl - there will be those who attack the Extra as "elitist" and "a barrier" and "an unreasonable burden". Besides, just because someone did the work of learning BEFORE they decided to become a ham doesn't mean they didn't still "do the work." Why should that (previously accomplished) work be "devalued" as some suggest??? For that matter, what about those for whom it wasn't that much "work" at all? Some folks can pick up a copy of, say, "Now You're Talking", read it through, and pass the test easily, even though they had no radio experience at all beforehand. Other folks will struggle with the very same material. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net... "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Maybe so, but it's not the FCC's business to determine how much someone "values" a ham license ... only to determine if they meet the minimum qualifications established. Besides, just because someone did the work of learning BEFORE they decided to become a ham doesn't mean they didn't still "do the work." Why should that (previously accomplished) work be "devalued" as some suggest??? WHERE do you come up with some of this stuff??? Which points would you dispute? DICK has no point (no pun intended). Haven't you ever noticed that all DICK does is join the masses he follows but never has any true intelligent argument to make himself? Kind of like when someone speaks up, and a sidekick says, "YEAH, what he said!" Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
DICK has no point (no pun intended). Haven't you ever noticed that all DICK does is join the masses he follows but never has any true intelligent argument to make himself? Kind of like when someone speaks up, and a sidekick says, "YEAH, what he said!" Kim W5TIT Yeah, what she said. ;^) I recall once, years ago, when Dick made a thoughtful, well reasoned post about amateur radio. And he wasn't tail-ending someone elses thoughts. So it is possible - he has the capacity. Bruce, on the other hand... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com