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

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

Which means WHAT?

Members of ANY branch of the US military in 1978 were ALL
volunteers. ALL.

Yeah, they volunteered to join which is to say they agreed to swear to
follow the orders of their superiors. What do you surmise would have
happened to one of those CG grunts if he told his lieutenant "Oh well
screw you George, I'm a volunteer and I ain't taking no damned ham
radio tests."

Why don't you explain how it was in YOUR military service, old
timer? :-)

You NEVER did any, sweetums. None.

And you have the temerity to claim "work for naval intelligence!" :-)

Ya goofy PUTZ.

Call us VETERANS anything you want, old timer. The steam has gone
out of your catapult and you can't launch much anymore.

Tell us all about your ultralight flyers, all the wright stuff...about as
lightweight as your military communications experience.

LHA

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...