"KØHB" wrote:

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try
to confuse me with facts."

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot
be certain of the meaning of your words either."

"My opinions may have changed, but not the
fact that I am right."

"The very powerful and the very stupid have
one thing in common. Instead of altering their
views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
their views... which can be very uncomfortable
if you happen to be one of the facts that needs
altering."


All nice quotes, Hans. But not very relevant when there are no facts.
Lacking those facts, I can only go with what I believe to be fact. Of
course, those who don't agree are never going to accept that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion
that it is a fact does not make it so.


And you're being deliberately disputatious. I've never said it did make it
so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making
up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement
with the stated goals and philosophy of his
proposal. I haven't found a single case where
Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal
thing.


You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't
give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

I've tried to give straightforward and responsive answers to every question
asked about my proposal. Since it is so far only a proposal (work in
process) and not yet a petition, it would be fair to say that some detail is
missing and I've done my best to supply that detail, often in a
contemporaneous manner. If that isn't definitive enough for you, I suggest
you QSY up 5.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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.

Fair enough, Hans. However, in the case of the 5-wpm test, it's difficult to
fathom how so much effort can be placed on opposing it when such little
effort is actually needed to ace it. Does that apply to everyone, no. But at
5-wpm, I believe it applies to the majority. I suppose it's the absence of
the willingness to even try to learn something new that I find
objectionable. It's commonly hidden behind the "I know I won't like it so I
don't even want to learn the basics" defense.

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.

Well, to be honest, Hans...Amateur Radio is a whole lot more than just
regulatory to me. I believe that the regulatory agencies have sufficiently
modernized the qualification process with the removal of the 13 and 20-wpm
exams. Having said that, I further believe that many here, on both sides of
the debate, have actually forgotten what the debate is over...the 5-wpm
Element 1.

I personally don't think that the 5-wpm is a "barrier" to anybody except
those who are unwilling to try in the first place. Additionally, there's
been a no-code Amateur Radio license class available for over a decade now.
(Via 35 multiple-choice questions for which the Q&A pool is published?!)

I think Element 1 is the bare minimum to be part of a well rounded
curriculum, YMMV.

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

Compared to you, I'm as green as Kermit the frog on the CW bands. But I have
noticed a thing or two. I've yet to hear a dit sent in anger. Jim, N2EY
assures me that I will eventually, but I'm still waiting. (And I'm on 30
and/or 40 every night now.) I have listened to some local (As well as some
distant.) VHF/UHF repeaters and some of what I've heard made me feel as if
Amateur Radio had been a tad diminished. I've heard the "F" word used on 20
and I won't even touch the subject of 75.

IOW, Hans...the trees are falling in out forest, but they're too far away
for us to hear them. But it's still our forest as a whole.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back. Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...
which do nothing for the hobby.

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

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of
the
main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so
that
new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except high
power
transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge
and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty
good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced, just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try
to confuse me with facts."

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot
be certain of the meaning of your words either."

"My opinions may have changed, but not the
fact that I am right."

"The very powerful and the very stupid have
one thing in common. Instead of altering their
views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
their views... which can be very uncomfortable
if you happen to be one of the facts that needs
altering."


All nice quotes, Hans. But not very relevant when there are no facts.
Lacking those facts, I can only go with what I believe to be fact. Of
course, those who don't agree are never going to accept that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Without data, in some endeavors (not ham radio) it can be downright
dangerous to act on what you believe to be fact. Without data, one should
tread with caution rather than certainty.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion
that it is a fact does not make it so.


And you're being deliberately disputatious. I've never said it did make
it
so.


The phrasing used in your posts attempt to make it so. Thus naturally I will
dispute the contention that you are trying to make it a fact without any
supporting data. Not only are you trying to call it a fact but attempting
to make others believe it, again without supporting data.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't
give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the
discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

I've tried to give straightforward and responsive answers to every
question
asked about my proposal. Since it is so far only a proposal (work in
process) and not yet a petition, it would be fair to say that some detail
is
missing and I've done my best to supply that detail, often in a
contemporaneous manner. If that isn't definitive enough for you, I
suggest
you QSY up 5.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Working on answers to such questions is actually beneficial in that it
allows you to see where your proposal may need refinement before becoming a
petition. Although I don't agree with what you are proposing, I do agree
with refining your proposal so it doesn't have the gaps that have been
spotted.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

I noted that some time ago, Bill, but nobody commented on it until you did.

Perhaps that's part of the plan! Imagine if the FCC database totals showed the
number of hams who had ever held a license, rather than the number of current
licenses.....

Japan's operator licenses are "for life", which is one reason their totals
appear to be so high.

The biggest downside I can see is that a lot of prime callsigns would be tied
up unless family members could be convinced to send in a license cancellation
letter.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back.

I got one of those, too. Now it can even be done online.

Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

I say "bring it on! I got yer 100 questions right here!"

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...

Is that bad?

which do nothing for the hobby.

That's one spin. Here's another: By getting a Class A instead of clinging to my
Extra, I'd be setting an example for others *and* reducing FCC's admin
workload.

After all, if every Extra got a Class A, there's be no problem. And one of the
simplest tests of any action's morality is "what if everyone did that?"

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

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

Sure. But obviously FCC though it worth doing for 15 years, and again today
with the Advanced and Novice.

Is it really almost four years since those changes?
--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of
the main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so
that new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except

high power transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable
time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced, just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Actually, they have a logic problem! Because the fact of possesing an
Advanced in and of itself does not prove that someone passed the 13 wpm test
any more than having an Extra proves someone passed the 20 wpm test, due to
medical waivers.

73 de Jim, N2EY