"Kim" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold
much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I endured the study of and took the test for CW *just* for the phone
privleges on 10M, specifically to join in on a nightly ragchew with a whole
bunch of local folks--which is no longer going on but it was neat while it
did. That is the *only* reason I did anything involving CW. So, you can
word it any way you want, Dee, but what compels one person to work with CW
at all, may not be what compels someone else.

Exactly!

And consider this:

I know hams who "endured" the study and *written* tests for the
Technician, General, Advanced and Extra, because they wanted the
*CW/data* privileges. (Code test was no problem for them).

Hans' proposal would cause all new hams to "endure" the study for and
taking of a written test just to *keep* an amateur license beyond 10
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:



I still think there is a fundamental problem I have with Morse code
- although I have come a long way, the effort I have to put in compared
to what others apparently have to do is nothing short of phenomenal. A
half hour at lunch, another half hour to an hour in the evening, 6 days
a week, and I am still struggling. I know I am nowhere near stupid, and
I've tried enough different methods to know that there is something
somewhere that makes my brain process sounds a bit differently than
those that find Morse easy.

But in most matters, I am one of those steely nerved types, and
consider myself too dumb to panic.

But, I persevere! I'm starting to catch whole words on the air (at
faster speeds) now, and it is exciting, despite my whining about it!

It's like anything else, some things come easy for some people, some
things don't.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my
comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before
responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

You made a statement that most people had such exposure and while I
naturally knew that was only your opinion, you stated it as if it were a
fact. Therefore I was justified in asking you to provide the data to
support that statement.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

But, I persevere! I'm starting to catch whole words on the air (at
faster speeds) now, and it is exciting, despite my whining about it!


That puts you ahead of me. I still don't catch whole words just the
individual letters and catch the letters as they come. There are some
exceptions to that though. "CQ" and "CQ TEST" come through immediately as
words.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my
comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before
responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


The angle of argument that Dee is trying to use is old, tired and
*yawn*....

Kim W5TIT

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as if it were fact rather than his
personal opinion that most people had had exposure to Morse code. I
challenged him to prove it. This is standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement, then in a debate, he must be
prepared to back it with facts. That the subject here is Morse code does
not negate debate procedures even if he wishes it did.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article t, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.


I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that.

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as many as 5
separate written tests (Novice, Tech, General, Advanced, Extra - March 1987 to
April 2000) or as few as two (General and Extra, 1951 to 1967)

The total number of questions has varied similarly, but the current total is
the lowest since the 1951 restructuring.

The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.

Depends on the subject.

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material. Obviously a lot of the
basics would be covered in the Class B. And with the simplified structure, some
of the questions like subbands-by-license-class would go away.

However, since the Class B would be a simplified test, the Class A would
probably need to be 150 questions...

So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?

I suggest something different.

There's no need to retest what has been already tested.

Also, a big test should be broken down into pieces-by-subject and graded that
way. IOW, a safety part, a regs part, a theory part, etc. And you have to pass
each part (subelement) to pass the test - aceing the theory shouldn't allow you
to get all the safety questions wrong, for example.

--

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A licenses
automatically, or would they have to retest?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class
A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took
the new test. Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to
their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with
honoring that.

And I like your notion of splitting the Class A test into broad subject
areas --- off the top of my head "Electronics/Communications theory",
"Regulations and Safety", and "Operating Practices" would make a nice three
way division with perhaps 35 questions per segment.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You made a statement that most people
had such exposure and while I naturally
knew that was only your opinion, you
stated it as if it were a fact. Therefore I
was justified in asking you to provide the
data to support that statement.


That doesn't change my response. Again, show me where such statistical
data is collected and I'll cite it for you. Of course, you know it isn't
collected, and therefore my comment could not have been based on that, so
your question was clearly disingenuous.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as
if it were fact rather than his personal opinion
that most people had had exposure to Morse
code. I challenged him to prove it. This is
standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement,
then in a debate, he must be prepared to
back it with facts. That the subject here is
Morse code does not negate debate
procedures even if he wishes it did.


This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no
debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup
discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody
collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from even
asking for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) Dat's gonna be one big test!


Yep. And covering a massive variety of information.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote:

I expect it would be a longer test than
todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band
segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level),
and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken
in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those who are
intimidated by lengthy exams or have
weak bladders.


In the end, I've described several, what I consider, serious faults in
your proposal, and that's without even getting into what I think the FCC's
perspective might be. I don't even think you're being realistic at this
point. Because of that, I don't think your proposal has a chance in Hades of
getting any further than a passing discussion in this newsgroup. As such,
I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have something to add but so far
you've only been a detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.

Have a great holiday season.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You made a statement that most people
had such exposure and while I naturally
knew that was only your opinion, you
stated it as if it were a fact. Therefore I
was justified in asking you to provide the
data to support that statement.


That doesn't change my response. Again, show me where such statistical
data is collected and I'll cite it for you. Of course, you know it isn't
collected, and therefore my comment could not have been based on that, so
your question was clearly disingenuous.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


No I was illustrating that your statement was clearly disingenuous. Hiding
an opinion by making a statement that was couched in terms to make it appear
as if it were a fact. Therefore as a debater it is not only my right but my
duty to challenge it and ask you for proof. And you can't provide it.
Instead, you attempt to ask me to prove your statement, which is an invalid
debating technique.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as
if it were fact rather than his personal opinion
that most people had had exposure to Morse
code. I challenged him to prove it. This is
standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement,
then in a debate, he must be prepared to
back it with facts. That the subject here is
Morse code does not negate debate
procedures even if he wishes it did.


This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no
debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup
discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody
collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from
even
asking for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)


Since you are aware that nobody collects such data, simple common sense
should have prevented you from making such an unprovable statement in the
first place.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra,
they may have taken as many as 5 separate
written tests (snip)


Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about
the present (the three written tests).


"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in
the Class B. (snip)


I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material. By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited
from building their own equipment also? If not, how would one really make
the test simplier?


And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class
would go away. (snip)


So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also? This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.


Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they
have to retest?


Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license
structure, Jim. Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra,
they may have taken as many as 5 separate
written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about
the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide variety of
written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question written test to go
from General to Extra. I took two 50 question writtens to make the same
transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a single 50 question written. But all
of us prenetly hold the same license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in
the Class B. (snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited
from building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make
the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff (because Class
Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class B rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur
gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test must be adequate
for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the higher
frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and SSB on
10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class
would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur frequencies. For
example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras, Advanceds,
Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for new hams.
Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30 MHz. No more having
to memorize lots of little subbands which then become obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If an
existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to avoide
that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they
have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license
structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us Extras? I say
"Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call it
"absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there are
only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000 hams. Was that
an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the other 6 to
new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code test is
a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun wrote in
:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as
many as 5 separate written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking
about the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide
variety of written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question
written test to go from General to Extra. I took two 50 question
writtens to make the same transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a
single 50 question written. But all of us prenetly hold the same
license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B.
(snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of
repeated material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from
building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff
(because Class Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class
B rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate
amateur gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test
must be adequate for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the
higher frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and
SSB on 10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any
technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the questions like
subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur
frequencies. For example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras,
Advanceds, Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for
new hams. Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30
MHz. No more having to memorize lots of little subbands which then
become obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If
an existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to
avoide that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A
licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new
license structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us
Extras? I say "Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call
it "absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now
there are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost
200,000 hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished
in theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will
go away when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid
actually taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the
Novice subbands to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be
mentionned anywhere in Part 97, the only other alternative would be to
take them away from those Techs who have them now, which would be very
unpalatable).

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I
oppose all time limits and time in grade requirements. However, I think
that something ultimately will have to be done about the status of
Novice and Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed
licence classes indefinitely. I would have no problem with
automatically upgrading them all, but I know that many others would not
like it. Maybe the way around this is to have new (or at least
re-named) licence classes. Someone who objects to Advanced licencees
getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to both becoming Class As,
for example. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?


So maybe Class A (Extra/Advanced), B (General) and C (Tech/Novice)?

"Alun" wrote in message
...
[snip] However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely. I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example. A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Why is it "just too messy?" Afterall the databases are computerized.
Renewals will have to be processed regardless of whether the person stays at
the same level or upgrades. There is no problem generated by having the old
classes and no advantage whatsoever to combining them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class
A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took
the new test.

Bring it on!

Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to
their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with
honoring that.

There would be no difference in privileges, right?

What about vanity calls?

And I like your notion of splitting the Class A test into broad subject
areas --- off the top of my head "Electronics/Communications theory",
"Regulations and Safety", and "Operating Practices" would make a nice three
way division with perhaps 35 questions per segment.

Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each subject
area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three.

I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered
in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete
it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra? If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote


What about vanity calls?

No change from current rules.

Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each
subject
area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three.

I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test.

No, my vision for the Class B test is similar to the original Novice exam.
Some basic stuff to ensure the applicant has an acquaintence with the
subject matter, and not heavily weighted in any single area, and not such a
tight screen that it blocks those with 'casual interest'.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get
_phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the
beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold
much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get
phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway.
The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF
privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when
one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I endured the study of and took the test for CW *just* for the phone
privleges on 10M, specifically to join in on a nightly ragchew with a
whole
bunch of local folks--which is no longer going on but it was neat while
it
did. That is the *only* reason I did anything involving CW. So, you
can
word it any way you want, Dee, but what compels one person to work with
CW
at all, may not be what compels someone else.

Exactly!

And consider this:

I know hams who "endured" the study and *written* tests for the
Technician, General, Advanced and Extra, because they wanted the
*CW/data* privileges. (Code test was no problem for them).

Hans' proposal would cause all new hams to "endure" the study for and
taking of a written test just to *keep* an amateur license beyond 10
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I think I like that idea!

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my
comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before
responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


The angle of argument that Dee is trying to use is old, tired and
*yawn*....

Kim W5TIT

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as if it were fact rather than his
personal opinion that most people had had exposure to Morse code. I
challenged him to prove it. This is standard operating procedure in
debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement, then in a debate, he must be
prepared to back it with facts. That the subject here is Morse code does
not negate debate procedures even if he wishes it did.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that
someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc. I
think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to
decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter) without
any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or
wouldn't, like that I've never tried:

parachuting
picking up clothes at a cleaners
dropping off babies to daycare
raising grandchildren
holding snot in my hand
bungee jumping
parasailing
rough sex
working in a foundry
getting a tattoo
being bald
all kinds of food
spelunking
building a computer...or anything for that matter
being a man

Add countless other things to that list.

If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without ever
having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like CW
without having any real experience with it.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as
if it were fact rather than his personal opinion
that most people had had exposure to Morse
code. I challenged him to prove it. This is
standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement,
then in a debate, he must be prepared to
back it with facts. That the subject here is
Morse code does not negate debate
procedures even if he wishes it did.


This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no
debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup
discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody
collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from
even
asking for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Nope. I disagree, but only because I approach this venue exactly in the
same manner as Dee. I like debating and there are few people who can do it
artfully. But, I don't think I've ever expected anyone else to approach it
the same way I do. However, to engage one in discourse almost dictates that
you must be willing to communicate at their level and in their manner. For
example, Waddles is way down below my league, so I don't even get his posts
any more. Same for Dan. Larry's just fun...

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote

I'm almost afraid to ask, Hans. What is QCAO?

Quarter Century Appliance Operators club, sorta like the QCWA (Quarter
Century Wireless Association). See press release below.

73, de Hans, K0HB


-----------------------------------------------------------------
News Release:

QCAO Reorganizes

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Quarter Century Appliance Operators was founded in the
early 1950's by a small group of Amateur Radio operators from
the Pacific Northwest. They had been active in their hobby for
over 25 years, yet still lacked the basic knowledge of radio
electronics and had no idea of how their equipment worked.

They banded together to try and protect each others honor
and pride. At radio gatherings and club meetings in the 1950s
one was considered unworthy of the name Ham Radio Operator if
he or she couldn't not only name components, but know how to
solder them together and make a radio work, or fix a broken set!

When faced with insults and dreision, those few hardy
pioneers banded together and formed the First Chapter and
National Organization of the QCAO. This was known as the "Cold
Solder" Chapter. They even coined the now-famous club byword
"e pluribus ignoramae" which is Latin for "We don't have to know
how to solder, we just wanna talk on our radios."

No veterans of that first chapter are known to be active on
the air today. In the late 1950s and early '60s, with the
worldwide interest in science and space and technology, the QCAO
membership went underground.

It is with great pride and dignity that today in the 21st Century
the revived QCAO stands ready to rise from the ashes, and become
the standard of mediocrity it once proudly was. In honor of
those first pioneering members, QCAO hereby invites all eligible
applicants to step forward and join!

The benefits of QCAO include not only the pride of
membership. Think of the warm glow you will feel at club
meetings and gatherings showing off your new all-plastic
imprinted QCAO pocket protector! And that's not all! For your
minimal membership fee, you will also receive a handsome,
suitable-for-framing, certificate of honor, with hand-lettered
name and Charter Membership Number. Other QCAO memorabilia
will soon be available for members, including T-shirts, caps,
pins, etc. At this date charter membership numbers are still
available. Membership requires a 25 years (more or less)
interest in Amateur Radio, coupled with a basic ignorance of how
radios work and how to repair them.

Think of meeting other QCAO members on the air! No more
embarrassing pauses when someone in the QSO mentions an RF choke
or a parasitic bleeder...Be able to exchange meaningful sharing,
talk about real things, yes, even swap QCAO numbers with each
other! And soon perhaps . . . a worldwide QCAO contest!

You no longer have to shrink to the back of the room at post-
meeting sessions of your radio club. Just display your QCAO
protector and others will be able to identify you immediately.
Who knows? Perhaps one of the originals from that old QCAO
Chapter is just waiting for you to find him. Join now! Remember
"We don't have to know how to solder, we just wanna talk on our
radios"! Don't let technoids embarrass you and kick jargon in
your face. Stand up for what's right! Join QCAO!

"e pluribus ignoramae"

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.

I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra.

But emphasis on different things.

However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that.

Depends what vintage Extra you're talking about.

The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.

Yet if lots of time elapsed between upgrades, that's not going to be completely
accurate.

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

Not really. It would only have to cover the stuff not covered in the Class B
test.

And if it takes a 120 or 150 question test, is that really a problem? We're not
talking EE or PE level questions here, just multiple choices from a published
pool.

So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests.

Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now
what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim,
pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much
if at all.

I don't recall saying that, but maybe I did.

Point is that a Tech today needs to be tested on RF safety at the 1500 W level
for VHF/UHF/microwaves, which are obvioulsy present the most hazard (as WK3C
says "meat-cooking frequencies"). Generals need to be tested on *all* RF
exposure, because they have *all* bands and full power.

Meanwhile us *old* (pre-1996) hams never had any RF safety stuff in our tests.
(At least some of us - ahem - learned the stuff anyway so we'd be current with
the current tests)

But is RF safety really that tough a subject?


But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to
address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe"
amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test
for class A.

Dat's gonna be one big test!

If so, is that really a problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bert Craig" wrote


I don't know what's so fascinating about it, Kim. It stands to reason that
to make an "educated" decision regarding anything, one should be...well,
somewhat educated on the subject.

Sounds reasonable to me.

That includes some practical experience.

Not necessarily. I've made decisions to do (or not to do) many, many things
without a lick of practical experience. I have decided not to be a surfer,
I've decided not to eat chocolate covered insects, I've decided not to
engage in same-gender sex, I've decided not to be a vegetarian, I've decided
not to be a Hindu, all with some 'education' on the subject but without a
bit of practical experience. I'm sure some folks make the same decision
about whether to learn Morse code.


However, many of these anti-code
folks are about to diminish the value (As a whole.) of a hobby I dearly
love...despite having a very generous chunk of no-code RF real estate.

Bert, with all due respect, how are they diminishing the value of Amateur
Radio? I truly enjoy Morse code, and use it frequently, but I'm not
persuaded that we need a Morse qualification test any longer. I'm a member
of FISTS and I'm a member of NCI. I see both organizations as having goals
which advance Amateur Radio for me. FISTS encourages people to use Morse
code, and NCI encourages regulatory agencies to modernize the qualification
process for new licensees.

If some new guy/gal gets on HF without knowing Morse code, the value of
Amateur Radio has not been diminished for me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that
someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc. I
think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to
decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter) without
any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or
wouldn't, like that I've never tried:

parachuting
picking up clothes at a cleaners
dropping off babies to daycare
raising grandchildren
holding snot in my hand
bungee jumping
parasailing
rough sex
working in a foundry
getting a tattoo
being bald
all kinds of food
spelunking
building a computer...or anything for that matter
being a man

Add countless other things to that list.

If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without
ever
having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like CW
without having any real experience with it.

Kim W5TIT



I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Alun
writes:

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).

And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.

Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such
awful ideas.

However, I doubt FCC will go for either. Just MHO.

However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences.

Why? They're just entries in a database. Since no new ones are being issued,
they involve no more admin work than other license classes.

At the end of 1952, FCC stopped issuing new Advanceds. They allowed existing
Advanceds to keep those licenses, renewing and modifying as needed. Most of the
approximately 40,000 Advanceds of that time did just that.

Then, almost 15 years later, FCC reopened the Advanced to new issues.

It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely.

How is it messy?

I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example.

I doubt that!

A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Renaming isn't going to fool anyone that is against free upgrades.

Is the current 50 question Extra test so tough that it presents a serious
"barrier" to existing Advanceds?

What is the problem of keeping old license classes on the database and rules?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that
someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc.
I
think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to
decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter)
without
any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or
wouldn't, like that I've never tried:

parachuting
picking up clothes at a cleaners
dropping off babies to daycare
raising grandchildren
holding snot in my hand
bungee jumping
parasailing
rough sex
working in a foundry
getting a tattoo
being bald
all kinds of food
spelunking
building a computer...or anything for that matter
being a man

Add countless other things to that list.

If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without
ever
having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like
CW
without having any real experience with it.

Kim W5TIT



I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply
because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end
I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Your mileage may vary, Dee, but I *know* I would not like any of the items I
listed. And, I cannot believe anyone would do something (outside of
employment that is) because someone insisted on it--most of all a spouse or
family member--who should know far better than to "insist" on anything from
me that I don't wish to do. Nor would I insist of anything from them.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:


Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such
awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A. Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Since you are aware that nobody collects
such data, simple common sense should
have prevented you from making such an
unprovable statement in the first place.


No, you misunderstand my position. I'm not backing away from my statement.
I still feel it is entirely accurate and therefore fact. However, as you
well know, I can't prove it because nobody gathers such statistics. But that
alone doesn't change the accuracy of a statement. There is a lot of truth
and facts in this world that isn't backed up by statistics.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Nope. I disagree, but only because I approach
this venue exactly in the same manner as Dee.
I like debating and there are few people who can
do it artfully. But, I don't think I've ever expected
anyone else to approach it the same way I do.
However, to engage one in discourse almost
dictates that you must be willing to communicate
at their level and in their manner. (snip)


Then we all need to get together and establish specific rules for debate
in this newsgroup. And everyone should be made aware of those rules to
insure an even playing field. Without that, screaming about rules and
procedures is a little absurd, don't you think? So lets talk about common
debate rules. Every debate I've seen allows for opinion - even opinions
about what is a fact when that is not clear. Since nobody gathers statistics
for what I said, there are no facts to prove or disprove my statement -
there is only opinion either way. Therefore, since everyone involved has now
admitted to knowing that nobody gathers such statistics, my statement would
be acceptable even under standard debate rules and any challenge following
that could only be interpreted as an attempt to sidetrack the debate (which,
I believe, is not proper debate procedure).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Since you are aware that nobody collects
such data, simple common sense should
have prevented you from making such an
unprovable statement in the first place.


No, you misunderstand my position. I'm not backing away from my
statement.
I still feel it is entirely accurate and therefore fact. However, as you
well know, I can't prove it because nobody gathers such statistics. But
that
alone doesn't change the accuracy of a statement. There is a lot of truth
and facts in this world that isn't backed up by statistics.

FEELING that something is true or false doesn't make it so. You have made
an assertion that you claim to be fact therefore it IS up to you, even in a
casual discussion to back it up with data. If that data has not been
collected, then you cannot make such an assertion until either you find a
data source or collect that data with valid statistical methods.

No one in my experience outside of ham radio knew anything about Morse code
except possibly its name. Therefore I could state that most people have not
had enough exposure to Morse code to make an educated decision on whether
they would like it or not. However since I know that this is not sufficient
data to provide proof of my opinion, I do not state it as a fact. Although
my "fact" is just as valid and accurate as your "fact". This is why
opinions are not allowed as proof of anything.

Unless you have statistical data on this, your statement is an OPINION and
nothing more.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote:

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have
something to add but so far you've only been a
detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.


Didn't you say the proposal has already been submitted? If so, there
really isn't anything that can be added and therefore any further discussion
is pointless.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

Not according to Hans' answer to the
above question.


Hans' answer is not in his proposal. In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal. Instead, he just seems to be
making up answers as he goes along.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Alun" wrote:

So maybe Class A (Extra/Advanced), B (General)
and C (Tech/Novice)?


Or how about no reference to class in the license names at all - such as
"Temporary" and "Operator" licenses?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dee D. Flint wrote:




I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I have never tried drinking lye and I know I wouldn't
like it. By your reasoning I should try it as I might like dying.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

FEELING that something is true or false
doesn't make it so. You have made an
assertion that you claim to be fact
therefore it IS up to you, even in a casual
discussion to back it up with data. (snip)


Nonsense. I've never seen anybody asked to provide statistical data in a
casual discussion.


Unless you have statistical data on this,
your statement is an OPINION and
nothing more.


No kidding!!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along? Lacking
any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/