"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating
HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level.
Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the
recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass,
it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve.
See the cycle there. Had someone had the
courage to NOT throw some of these kids their
earlier curves in the first place, their Regents
scores would be higher.

What does this have to do with amateur radio?
Human nature. What we learn to do as we
practice our avocation early in life, we tend to
apply to other aspects later in life. (snip)


It is not Amateur Radio's job or mandate to correct society's ills, Bert.
Indeed, the current members of this avocation are not different enough from
society overall to even have the moral high ground to attempt to do so.
We're not gods or priests - we're simply radio operators. By the way, the
word "too," as in "too hard," has more than one "o."


Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service
to the lowest commen denominator?


There is nothing in code testing that insures the highest common
denominator, or anything more than a lowest common denominator.
Incidentally, one would reasonably expect no spelling mistakes in a message
written by a person bold enough to point out the limited educational skills
of others. The word "common" is spelled with an "o," not an "e."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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:

'Phone signals take up far more spectrum than code signals. Back in the days
when full carrier DSB AM was king, the ratio was even worse than it is with
SSB. Ten to twenty code signals in the space of one AM 'phone signal is about
right. Not to mention the whistles from heterodyning carriers.

If you're going to argue about non-related privs, then why should anyone have
to learn about VHF/UHF to use HF, or vice versa? Why require knowledge of
'phone and image to operate CW? Why require theory to operate manufactured
equipment?

Why require anyone to learn anything they don't think they'll use? Or anyhting
they don't like?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dee D. Flint wrote:

However that decision needs to be based on knowledge and experience not "I
don't want to learn" arguments.


There are some people who would like to have a Ham license, but will
say "I don't want to learn what is on the written tests."

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote:

Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd
be free to keep renewing your Technician
(what a misnomer!) license until you assume
room temperature.



Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Is that (you don't like "Technician" as the
name for this license) the real reason behind your attempt to change the
names of the various licenses? Regardless, I've read about Technicians in
your proposal. That still doesn't change any of my previous questions or
comments about how potential newcomers will be affected by the changes
suggested in that proposal.

By the way, since we're discussing why here, perhaps you can explain why
your proposal is needed at all. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish
with the proposal and what evidence do you have that would suggest that
need?


My thoughts exactly! I tend to prefer a system something like what we
have now, preseumably sans the Morse code test, with something added to
at least the General test, and likely the Extra test also.

I want added test material for the advanced licenses to fill the vacuum
left by the departure of Morse Code testing. I don't want the additions
as a way of keeping people out - indeed if there are some more
questions, it is just a matter of studying a little more. I want it to
show that we are not just getting rid of things, and thereby simply
making things easier to get a ticket.

Seems like a much easier to implement system to me.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Why is that a misnomer, Hans?

Because it is misleading. "Technician" implies an emphasis on
technical training, skills, and qualifications. While the original
Technician license stressed those areas and was specifically designed
to encourage amateur experimentation in VHF/UHF portions of the
spectrum, that charter has long shifted to the point that Technician
is the entry level license to our service, and the qualfication
process gives little more than a "wink and a nod" to technical
training and experimentation.

The name should be "Communicator".

73, Hans, K0HB

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote:

Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd
be free to keep renewing your Technician
(what a misnomer!) license until you assume
room temperature.

Why is that a misnomer, Hans? Is that (you don't like "Technician" as the
name for this license) the real reason behind your attempt to change the
names of the various licenses? Regardless, I've read about Technicians in
your proposal. That still doesn't change any of my previous questions or
comments about how potential newcomers will be affected by the changes
suggested in that proposal.

By the way, since we're discussing why here, perhaps you can explain why
your proposal is needed at all. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish
with the proposal and what evidence do you have that would suggest that
need?


My thoughts exactly! I tend to prefer a system something like what we
have now, preseumably sans the Morse code test, with something added to
at least the General test, and likely the Extra test also.

I want added test material for the advanced licenses to fill the vacuum

left by the departure of Morse Code testing. I don't want the additions
as a way of keeping people out - indeed if there are some more
questions, it is just a matter of studying a little more. I want it to
show that we are not just getting rid of things, and thereby simply
making things easier to get a ticket.

Seems like a much easier to implement system to me.

The FCC is not chartered to be an educational institution.

The amateur radio license test is NOT a certificate of achievement,
although some think it is so.

There is NO "requirement" that all prospective radio amateurs
"prove themselves" to the "amateur community" in order to
satisfy YOUR demands of hard work, dedication, and application
of "what is 'good' for amateur radio."

It's amazing the amount of self-righteousness that exists among
the already licensed in here. All newcomers MUST do as they
did in order for "acceptance" to the group.

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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:

'Phone signals take up far more spectrum than code signals. Back in the days
when full carrier DSB AM was king, the ratio was even worse than it is with
SSB. Ten to twenty code signals in the space of one AM 'phone signal is about
right. Not to mention the whistles from heterodyning carriers.

If you wish to BAN "wide bandwidth signals" in the U.S. amateur
bands, then submit a PETITION for such banishment.

Take everything back to 1950 or thereabouts, maybe even 1930.
BAN all those newfangled modes and modulations that don't meet
the criteria of simple, narrowband on-off keying. I keep suggesting
you also include in your petition a name change of the hobby to

Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service

If you feel "insulted" by such extremism, then change 'archaic' to
Amateur. You have the liberty to do that.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..."

Guess who said that? :-)

LHA

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) I kinda liken it to kids that are graduating
HS with a 5th, 6th, or 7th grade reading level.
Gee, how'd they get through? Check out the
recent regents debacle. Not enough kids pass,
it must be to hard...so we'll throw 'em a curve.
See the cycle there. Had someone had the
courage to NOT throw some of these kids their
earlier curves in the first place, their Regents
scores would be higher.

What does this have to do with amateur radio?
Human nature. What we learn to do as we
practice our avocation early in life, we tend to
apply to other aspects later in life. (snip)

It is not Amateur Radio's job or mandate to correct society's ills, Bert.
Indeed, the current members of this avocation are not different enough from
society overall to even have the moral high ground to attempt to do so.
We're not gods or priests - we're simply radio operators. By the way, the
word "too," as in "too hard," has more than one "o."

Dwight, you cannot argue with Believers.

Their self-righteousness knows no bounds.

They are correct by their own definitions.

They KNOW what is best for amateur radio...and that is a maintenance
of morse code proficiency forever and ever.

A morse code test for amateur radio licensing has "always" been in
the regulations (91 years) and it must always be there.

Why must we reduce our beloved hobby/service
to the lowest commen denominator?

There is nothing in code testing that insures the highest common
denominator, or anything more than a lowest common denominator.
Incidentally, one would reasonably expect no spelling mistakes in a message
written by a person bold enough to point out the limited educational skills
of others. The word "common" is spelled with an "o," not an "e."

Messaging sometimes goes down to the "lowest common
denominator" in writing... :-)

LHA

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Really? You mean all those things I did
to get a properly operating station (putting
coax and connectors together, water-
proofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests,
ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a
microphone, equipment grounding,
lightning protection, RF exposure level
estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed
and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? (snip)

Soldering requires some modest skill but one
can hire that done if desired. The other items
are necessary but no skill is required just
taking the time to do it. (snip)

If you truly believe there is no skill involved to do those things
properly, I suspect you haven't done most of them (at least not properly).

Dwight, morse code proficiency overrules all other things. It doesn't
matter in other skills. Only one thing counts - morse code skill.

LHA

In article , Alun
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who
don't have the desire to use the skill.


Folks have just figured out a way to gain a
*privilege* in a perceived easier fashion, collectively whine. It
stands a great chance too. After all, the Gov't. agency they must
cajole shares their goal, less work. So with great glee, their
proponents espouse "the FCC doesn't agree that Morse is necessary." The
"regulatory" angle is just that, an angle. If you ignore the angle, you
realise that it was never about Element 1 in the first place.

It has always been about the code test. No angles. If you think it's just
a bid to reduce the requirements in general, then you just couldn't be
more wrong.

Alun, a morseodist will NEVER admit they are wrong or are defeated.

A morse code test has "always" been in regulations (always = 91 years)
so, therefore, by morseodist logic, it must ALWAYS be there.

Any demands, however slight, to reduce or eliminate the code test
are a blatant insult to individual Believers-in-Morse, heresy, an
abomination unto the god of ham, and other assorted pejoratives.

MISDIRECTION in replies in here is now an SOP. Sigh.



Why must our beloved hobby/service be reduced to the lowest common
denominator?

A "lowest common denominator" is unity. One.

United States amateur radio was created for only One. All must do as
that One did. Forever and ever.

Belief is love. Ergo, anything against the One is an insult.

Lots of insults in here, especially by the Loving Believers who will not,
ever, accept anything against their Beliefs of the One.

LHA.