Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

In article .net,

"KØHB"

writes:



"N2EY" wrote




But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved


down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.


I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...


Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -


The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service" ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting
that one.

And that can change really quickly.

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

Ahh, our very own Maginot line!


Imagine how much less work it would have been to get rid of the Morse
code requirements if we just would have kept our mouths shut.

If in the future, if perhaps something like the KL7CC plan is adopted,
do you think this will be the PCTA's fault because we said something
like that may happen? Because we said it may happen?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article .net,
"KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote



But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved

down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...

Carl, this is no different than Larry or Bruce wishing to destroy the
ARS because they couldn't have things their way.

Brian

(N2EY) wrote in message ... On the last page of his voluminous reply comments to the restructuring NPRM
back in 1999, Len requested that the FCC enact a minimum age requirement of 14
years for any class of amateur license. When challenged, however, he could not
give a single example of on-air violations by licensed radio amateurs under the
age of 14.

Neither would he respond to questions about his parenting
experiences that might lead him to make such a suggestion.

Yet another example of Lennie's lack of experience in ANYthing he
cares to discuss about Amateur Radio.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article .net,
"KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be
"shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

Note that Hans avoids my question.

I have to agree with Hans on this.

You're avoiding my question too, Carl. Why is that?

I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests

That's NOT what I've said at all! You're twisting my words into something
completely different.

I'm saying that the same arguments can be used - and will be used - by some
against both tests. The process is already started - see KL7CC's comments on
the recent petitions.

(I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the
amateur radio of the 21st century?

Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up?

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...

I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about something.
Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's the
Maximum Leader.

btw, his outfit sent me another one of those renewal packets. This time they
want $6 to do what I can do myself with a few mouse clicks.

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas, why
are you so afraid?

You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal.

You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense.

You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas.

Only me. Interesting.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service"

Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove the
need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now? Why
can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue?

... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting that one.

How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service
doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators" mantra.

Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to build
a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise?

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell -

Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there who
will *agree* with KL7CC.....

there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

It's probably already too late.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

In article .net,

"KØHB"

writes:


"N2EY" wrote


But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be
"shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.


Note that Hans avoids my question.

I have to agree with Hans on this.


You're avoiding my question too, Carl. Why is that?


I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests


That's NOT what I've said at all! You're twisting my words into something
completely different.

I'm saying that the same arguments can be used - and will be used - by some
against both tests. The process is already started - see KL7CC's comments on
the recent petitions.


(I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)


So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in the
amateur radio of the 21st century?

That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet,
and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are
warning about come to pass.

To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?

Nothing ever stands still. If the political currents happen to make the
entrance requirements for getting into the ARS easier, do those currents
stop once the original goal is met?

Face it, the people who want drastically reduced entrance requirements
or no requirements at all are a subset of those who want no Morse code
testing. Can you deny that?



Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up?

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...


I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about something.
Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's the
Maximum Leader.

And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know.

Why isn't he, if not asked to shut up, at least be asked to provide a
disclaimer. Instead, all we get is that his views do not reflect, yadayada.

btw, his outfit sent me another one of those renewal packets. This time they
want $6 to do what I can do myself with a few mouse clicks.


Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.


I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.


If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas, why
are you so afraid?

ahem....

You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal.

nope....

You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense.

nope....

You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas.

nope....

Only me. Interesting.

Do you want to know why Jim? What you are saying is:

T H E T R U T H

And that makes some people very very uncomfortable.

I hear Hans telling you about his losing respect for you. I hear Carl
setting you up for taking the blame when the FCC starts seriously
looking at massive reductions in knowledge needed to get a license.

And how's this for getting the great unwashed worked up?:

"Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is an anachronism, a relic of
previous days of left wing Socialist ideas. Much of the regulatory
morass that such thinking has inflicted on us has already been swept
aside, witness the great success with deregulation in the broadcast
bands. It is time we complete the process, and eliminate such regressive
policies in the rest of the radio spectrum." This will truly turn the
Amateur bands into the..............

You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance
to diss the hated regulators.


Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?


It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service"


Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove the
need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now? Why
can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue?

Here is what I think it means (to some):

I know people who think that they are "high tech" because they use a
cell phone. Or a computer. Or a GPS reciever. They might not be able to
explain how any of those things work, but by just using them, they
consider themselves high tech. I never asked, but I would be that they
would take one look at my IC-745 with it's 30 some buttons and knobs,
and conclude that just knowing how to operate it was a major bit of
"primarily a technically oriented service"

Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my
rig if they read the manual. NO test required!

... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting that one.


How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service
doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators" mantra.

We won't be able to fight it, will we? How on earth can Pro-Coders fight
it when we lost the last war against the arguments presented by the No
Coders, and how are the No-Coders going to fight against the same
arguments that they had once used so successfully?

Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to build
a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise?

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell -


Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there who
will *agree* with KL7CC.....

No doubt there ARE plenty. But Jim, I think you are just being set up to
take the blame here. Once the movement has gained momentum, it will just
be one more thing to blame upon those arrogant "Pro-coders".


there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.


It's probably already too late.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

In article .net,

"KØHB"

writes:

(I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)


So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in
the
amateur radio of the 21st century?

That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet,
and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are
warning about come to pass.


Yep. That's exactly the way I read, you (Mike) read it, and you (Jim) read
it. Probably more than just us. BUT, are we surprised? That is status quo
in at least this group of people--i.e. rather common practice in this
newsgroup to desire that someone "shut up" if that opinion is coming from an
opposite or challenging side.


To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?


That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. *Whether* people
"are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says
it," or not, Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd
like.

Kim W5TIT

How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical
service
doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators"
mantra.

We won't be able to fight it, will we? How on earth can Pro-Coders fight
it when we lost the last war against the arguments presented by the No
Coders, and how are the No-Coders going to fight against the same
arguments that they had once used so successfully?


Hello all .... The above represents some of the "soundest" logic I have
read on this group. The groundwork has been laid over the last 10-15 years
regarding change and the perceived or not necessity for it. Time will tell
if the CW mode will stand on its own, wither and die or .....grow. I wish
I could be more of an optimist regarding the service in the future. This
feeling is based over what I have read over the years in this and other
sources. The "love of radio" has been turned into the "love of
computers-internet" This sounds corney but does the magic of radio have a
counterpart in the computer-internet users ??? ....I don't have an answer
here. What was once secure, or thought so, is now under attack on many
fronts. Who wudda thunk that we would get begging letters from the ARRL who
apparently took lessons from the NRA. People 50 years ago would have
laughed if someone would have listed the infringments on a Constitutional
right ....no that would never happen ... guess what folks. Add to that the
fact that there is nothing in the bill of rights regarding pounding brass on
80 or yaking on 20.

It will be interesting however to see how the members of our community will
react both pro and con to the issuing of cereal box licenses which I feel
will eventually come based on the "proper - correct" philosophy of the day.

There is, on a good note, light at the end of the tunnel. This will be if a
fiber optic system can pass the economic muster and render RF really
antique. In our lifetime ???. I do wish for a long a happy life for the
service and hope that it will continue to give others as much pleasure as it
has for me over the last 40 years.

God Bless 73 Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa

(N2EY) wrote


Note that Hans avoids my question.


Blatant foma, Jim. I have repeatedly posted the answer to that
question in the words "The "Class A" license test would be of a
difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test". If that
doesn't answer your question, then you need a course in Remedial
English Comprehension.

Why can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue?

Last time I checked, FCC has not restricted which parts of amateur
radio I can pursue. I checked with K0CKB who has a lower-class
license than I, and she also feels completely free to chose what parts
she wished to pursue.

Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there who
will *agree* with KL7CC.....

Have you seen a SINGLE PERSON on RRAP who has expressed that the KL7CC
paper is "the way we ought to be licensed"? Sunuvagun! I haven't
either. I guess you're preaching to the choir, Jim, and frankly the
congregation is waiting to sing the "Amen Chorus".

73, de Hans, K0HB

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:


In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:



"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:


In article .net,

"KØHB"


writes:

(I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)


So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in

the

amateur radio of the 21st century?

That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet,
and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are
warning about come to pass.



Yep. That's exactly the way I read, you (Mike) read it, and you (Jim) read
it. Probably more than just us. BUT, are we surprised?

Nope!

That is status quo
in at least this group of people--i.e. rather common practice in this
newsgroup to desire that someone "shut up" if that opinion is coming from an
opposite or challenging side.

hehe, then this isn't the place to be for them. I like to come here for
the different viewpoints.

And of course, shutting up isn't an option for me.


To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?



That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. *Whether* people
"are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says
it," or not, Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd
like.

Well, yes! But it would be yummy fun to hear their answer though. 8^)
I'm not going to hold my breath tho'

Sunavagun! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?

No, I don't think there's anyone here that stupid.

But then again I didn't think there was anyone here stupid enough to ask
such a stupid question, and you've just proved me wrong.

Sunuvagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB