| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#15
October 7th 03, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New Web Forum | Homebrew | |||
| FYI: QRZ Forum - NCVEC Petition & Comments | Policy | |||
| BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Policy | |||
Threaded Mode
