|
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h bzzzzzt.... if this were true, It is true. Did you read the survey and its results? there wouldn't be such a push to remove it. Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members worldwide, even with no dues, no expiration of membership and having been around over 7 years. Oh, more than just NCI; ARRL seems to favor it, ARRL hasn't formulated a new position yet. Their leadership is sitting on the sidelines because no matter what they decide, some folks will be unhappy. and in general most hams do How do you know? The ARRL/READEX survey was a true random sample. What scientific survey or polling have you done to verify your claim of "most hams"? that aren't the ones clinging to desperate delusionary hopes in certain internet NG's. Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski. Maybe it is. But if so, it's not because most hams want it to go. And on particular, not because young hams want it to go. |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: There should be some sort of beginner's license that an average 14 year old honor roll student can get That would require an extensive reworking of the current tests. We've got at least one 6 year old General and an 8 year old passed the old Extra. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Dick Carroll wrote: You can imagine what my small hometown looked like when I returned after 5 years military time away in places like New York, Hartford, Philly, Chicago, Paris and Frankfurt. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm... Probably looked like good old HOME! 8^) After growing up in metro Philly, I found the Finger Lakes region of New York State much more to my liking. But the job is here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski. Maybe it is. But if so, it's not because most hams want it to go. mmm, yea, it pretty much *is*. |
Unless you are putting more into what was typed or seeing it completely different, no, I didn't admit more than what I wanted to..... People in the teen age groups are still forming their identities and becoming what they might be for the rest of their lives typically. If you have differences with the word "moldable," then that is your problem. Influenced maybe a better word then?? Ryan, KC8PMX I wasn't argueing about the definition of the term "moldable", really... and actually influenced would be a bit less condescending and not give you such an appearance of wanting to be dictatorial... I was putting more emphasis on the part that said "..into the hams that *we* want them to be." ....heh, and people a while back took exception to my use of the term "jack booted CW nazis". Clint |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dick Carroll writes: Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your comment is out of line. Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others, that you should spend more time off-line. Thanks for the grin, Leonard. Might I suggest that you follow your own advice? If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem. It's no one's "problem," senior. U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy. ....and no one has indicated belief that it is. None of that is your concern. You aren't involved in any way. Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a few. You've got a pretty good imagination yourself, old timer. You keep, for example, imagining that you are involved in amateur radio. I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite the many claims of NCI mavens. Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate with the rest of the world's frequency. Get in tune. Get "Tune In The World With Amateur Radio". Dave K8MN |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members worldwide (snip) Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years. "Ranting"? Perhaps I could have worded my post better. My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite. The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have joined NCI. As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with). How do we know this? The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of publicity in the amateur press. Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much shorter time. To now try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation. Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks? Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim. I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way. The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into question a person's sanity. How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys showing the opposite? And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members worldwide (snip) Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years. "Ranting"? I have to agree with Jim's ???... Jim has never been one to "rant." Perhaps I could have worded my post better. I didn't see anything "ranting about it." My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite. The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have joined NCI. So? The issue isn't to be decided by some unilateral vote of only licensed hams. The issue is one of appropriate regulatory test requirements. As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with). How do we know this? The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of publicity in the amateur press. Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much shorter time. One could also argue that most hams don't really care that code testing ends...certainly not enough to file comments that indicate a desire to keep code....and probably because they know the end result is only a matter of time. To now try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation. Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks? What difference does it make anyway? Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim. I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way. The "push" has certainly been far more than just NCI. If it was only NCI, how do you explain the ITU treaty change by with not one vote against the change...and how do you explain the IARU possision...again, almost a unanomous set of votes in each region except for a couple of no votes and abstentions. The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into question a person's sanity. How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys showing the opposite? The FCC doesn't care about percentages...and it shouldn't. See above my comment about the decision being what is proper test requirments as opposed to what any majority of hams may want. Additionally, I never saw any true survey that could be justifiable stated as accurately reflecting ALL hams. And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? Process. Better in the government mindset to open the comments and see what comes forward. So far, NOTHING new has been offered by PCTAs that hasn't already been sifted through and discounted by the FCC in prior reviews (e.g. NPRM 98-143 primarily). Without doubt, absent the treaty requirement, the ball is totally in the PCTA's court to justify keeping any code test...and so far there's nothing new. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com