|
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: 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. Prior to and just after the IARU decision on S25 policy, ARRL was ALL FOR CODE TESTING. In the USA, yes. But back in early 2001, ARRL changed policy on S25.5 and no longer supported its continuation in the treaty.. That didn't make the NCTA happy. ARRL still doesn't have any more membership than a quarter of all licensed US amateurs. I don't believe in coincidences. NCI membership is less than one percent of licensed US amateurs. Even though membership is free and requires only a few mouse clicks. Faced with the inevitable worldwide reaction and subsequent action at WRC-03, ARRL just OPTS OUT, goes neutral, won't take a stand either way. ARRL policy is made by representatives of the membership. If the membership is divided on an issue, a neutral policy may be the only solution. Their $12 million income (2002) is at stake. ARRL doesn't exist without funding. The ONLY people the ARRL is worried about is the present membership which is skewed towards PCTA thinking. Is it somehow wrong for a membership organization to do what the members think is best? ARRL membership is still only a quarter of all US licensed amateurs. NCI membership is less than one percent of licensed US amateurs. They aren't a majority. Their decisions are not a "consensus." Neither are NCI'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. Your OPINION, senior. No, simple fact, backed up by scientific survey. And the comments to 98-143. Do you have any good and true statistical polling to back up your OPINION? Yes! The ARRL/READEX survey showed that a majority favored code testing, and that the youngest age group was the most strongly procodetest. The comments to 98-143 were categorized by an NCI staffer (disproving any possible claim of bias by procodetest evaluation of the comments) and the resutls showed that the *majority* of commenters not only wanted continued code testing, but wanted at least 2 code test speeds. This was true despite an email campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of 5 wpm and sunset clause. Of course things may have changed since then. But for someone to claim, without more recent evidence, that most hams want code testing to disappear is simply wishful thinking. Strange, the news doesn't indicate any group of young people demonstrating for the retention of the amateur license code test. Nor the elimination of the amateur license code test. Irrelevant. Why do you say things about the "young hams" that you know not of? The evidence of the survey is clear. You can "stick head and eyes in the sand" but it is still there. |
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote: (snip) 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. I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim. I believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that shows the majority surveyed supported code testing. I don't doubt those results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends outside the club), the majority would also support code testing. Of course, the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings. Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians, attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then, discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time. 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? How do you know what? That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not members of NCI. 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 is it with your obsession with NCI? Are you campaigning for members or something? There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in that regard. And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim. Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything. Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... 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." The "type of hams we want them to be" I guess woud be different for different groups, but in general, rule-abiding and professional/courteous in operation to be a positive representation of us all licensees. ...heh, and people a while back took exception to my use of the term "jack booted CW nazis". Gee.... ya think?? I love "shock value" even if I don't really believe in whatever is the "shock." Ryan |
N2EY wrote:
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. I mean "average honor roll high school student", not "Einstein's grandson". Also I mention the honor roll student in the sense that Beavis and Butthead would not be able to pass the license tests. If Beavis did get a license, then ham radio would sound like the old 147.435 machine on L.A...... W6NUT IIRC |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart wrote: (snip) 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. I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim. Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500 respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in many "surveys".) I believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that shows the majority surveyed supported code testing. Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997. I don't doubt those results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends outside the club), the majority would also support code testing. The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes and age groups. Surveying club members doesn't. Of course, the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings. That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior. Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians, attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then, discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time. Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM. 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? How do you know what? How do we know that there are "far more outside that organization..involved"? I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham, etc. That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not members of NCI. Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are* members of NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How many different people have posted to rrap in the past year? 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 is it with your obsession with NCI? No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that organization. Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact that if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed based on those numbers alone. Are you campaigning for members or something? Just the opposite ;-) There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in that regard. That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code testing. And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim. Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything. That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for every rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a burden" It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend that FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to do so. Are they mistaken? Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time. Something always happens, given enough time. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: 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. Prior to and just after the IARU decision on S25 policy, ARRL was ALL FOR CODE TESTING. In the USA, yes. But back in early 2001, ARRL changed policy on S25.5 and no longer supported its continuation in the treaty.. That didn't make the NCTA happy. ARRL still doesn't have any more membership than a quarter of all licensed US amateurs. I don't believe in coincidences. NCI membership is less than one percent of licensed US amateurs. Even though membership is free and requires only a few mouse clicks. Faced with the inevitable worldwide reaction and subsequent action at WRC-03, ARRL just OPTS OUT, goes neutral, won't take a stand either way. ARRL policy is made by representatives of the membership. If the membership is divided on an issue, a neutral policy may be the only solution. Their $12 million income (2002) is at stake. ARRL doesn't exist without funding. The ONLY people the ARRL is worried about is the present membership which is skewed towards PCTA thinking. Is it somehow wrong for a membership organization to do what the members think is best? ARRL membership is still only a quarter of all US licensed amateurs. NCI membership is less than one percent of licensed US amateurs. They aren't a majority. Their decisions are not a "consensus." Neither are NCI'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. Your OPINION, senior. No, simple fact, backed up by scientific survey. And the comments to 98-143. Do you have any good and true statistical polling to back up your OPINION? Yes! The ARRL/READEX survey showed that a majority favored code testing, and that the youngest age group was the most strongly procodetest. When was the survey done? If it is more than two years old, it is almost useless as there has been significant change over the last few years. The comments to 98-143 were categorized by an NCI staffer (disproving any possible claim of bias by procodetest evaluation of the comments) and the resutls showed that the *majority* of commenters not only wanted continued code testing, but wanted at least 2 code test speeds. This was true despite an campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of 5 wpm and sunset clause. Now it also must be pointed out that for the initial several weeks during 98-143 comment phase, those commenting were not aware of the position being put forth by NCI. How many people at the time may who said they support ARRLs stance may have supported NCI's position will never be known. Even so, the issue is NOT to be decided by any "vote" or majority opinion of any group or even the public at large. The decision will be, as it should be, based on what should be proper regulatory setting of licensing requirments. Of course things may have changed since then. But for someone to claim, without more recent evidence, that most hams want code testing to disappear is simply wishful thinking. Strange, the news doesn't indicate any group of young people demonstrating for the retention of the amateur license code test. Nor the elimination of the amateur license code test. Irrelevant. Good, since I believe it was you that mentioned that fact in the first place. If it is irrelevent, why bring it up? Why do you say things about the "young hams" that you know not of? The evidence of the survey is clear. You can "stick head and eyes in the sand" but it is still there. Again, what is the date of that survey? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart wrote: (snip) 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. I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim. Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500 respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in many "surveys".) But in these last 7 years, the ham community probably lost 10% to SK status. Most of those were probbaly pro-code and it is likely the survey, if done today, would show the continuing shift away from support of code testing. believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that shows the majority surveyed supported code testing. Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997. Asabove, too much time has passed for ayone to consider those results to be accurate in relation to the current ham population. I don't doubt those results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends outside the club), the majority would also support code testing. The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes and age groups. Surveying club members doesn't. Of course, the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings. That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior. Unfortuneately, it is real ham behavior. Hopefully it is just an aberration of some hams...although we have seen such attitudes voiced in the newsgroups by more than one or two posters in the past. Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians, attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then, discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time. Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM. I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway. 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? How do you know what? How do we know that there are "far more outside that organization..involved"? Who's on first? What? :-) :-) I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham, etc. That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not members of NCI. Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are* members of NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How many different people have posted to rrap in the past year? Someone used to post a Top 10 every month. 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 is it with your obsession with NCI? No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that organization. Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact that if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed based on those numbers alone. A mojority is nice, but as we've already seen, not really needed when the decision to keep code testing can't be justified to begin with (ref: R&O of 98-143) Are you campaigning for members or something? Just the opposite ;-) Keep doing your "just the opposite" because it helps let others know we exist. There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in that regard. That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code testing. Why does it matter anyway? And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim. Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything. That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for every rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a burden" True, but the FCC isn't stupid either. A few months of process helps avoid complaints down the road. It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend that FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to do so. Are they mistaken? No, I don't think they are mistaken, I just think the FCC is doing the process path because it is, in the end, less controversial...(IMHO). Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time. Something always happens, given enough time. Agreed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"N2EY" wrote:
Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500 respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in many "surveys".) Okay, perhaps it wasn't you. Someone posted the results of a survey done by some club or group in Minnesota, Michigan, or somewhere like that, just a week or so ago and I thought you were talking about that survey. I haven't seen the survey you're talking about here so can't really comment on it. That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior. Luckily, it is rare. The club in Washington was very open to all. This club isn't. Sadly, the fact that a club elsewhere is different doesn't really help those who are here. I've considered starting an alternative club, but I'm afraid the strong position of that club will quickly turn anything like that into a pro-testing versus anti-code testing situation (fed by members of both groups) which will not really benefit anybody in the long term. How do we know that there are "far more outside that organization..involved"? Well, since most Amateur Radio operators don't join any type of club (local, ARRl, or whatever), it's a fairly safe assumption. Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are* members of NCI. (snip) Do you know that for a fact, or did you just assume they were members like you did with me? No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that organization. (snip) Do you feel most who support code testing are members of FISTS or other such clubs? I don't think so. Based on what I've seen, there is a general trend throughout this country not to participate in clubs or other such groups. About the only exception to that is national political groups, which seem to be gaining members. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com