"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid.

Your description of my analogy remains inaccurate.

Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.

The regulations affect those who are hams the most.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio.

That's a passable analogy.

In most of the public parks I know, what you can do is limited. And
you need a permit/license to do certain things in the park.

What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."

No, that's not it at all. You misunderstand what Bert and I are
saying.

What we're saying is that on the single issue of continued Morse code
testing, it would be interesting to know what the opinions of *all*
licensed US hams, (not just a vocal minority) really are. That
includes amateurs of *all* license classes, not just those who have
passed a code test.

To use your park analogy, it's like polling those who actually use a
park whether a specific change should be made.

Nowhere is it proposed that the ability of others to comment would be
changed.

Of course this is simply a discussion point because there's no one who
would actually pay the expenses to conduct such a poll.

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA?

Nope.

I'm saying that I find it incredible that the allegedly most qualified
candidate for the highest office in the most populous and most in debt
state in
the Union is a movie actor with no real experience as a government
official.

The Constitution contains
no such language.

I know. And nowhere do I say it should be a requirement. But do you
*really* think the new governor is going to better than the old one?

My daughter was recently elected to public office, and
she has no previous experience as a government official.

Did she start out as Governor or as something with a little less
responsibility?

Should she and
Arnold be denied their office?

Nope. The electorate will get what they asked for.

Should only existing or previous government
officials be allowed to be elected?

Not at all.

Do you really think the new governor of California is the most
qualified for the job? I don't.

But because I don't live there, I can't vote there.

Or should there be some sort of 'incentive licensing' of government
officials in which you must first be elected to an entry level office, let's
say Canine Capture Technician. Then after gaining the skill and experience
to capture 5 dogs per minute, they be allowed to run for office at some more
responsible level, all the way up to President, and only those already
elected would be allowed to vote for them? What a concept!

How about the electorate considering qualifications?

The fact that you have an amateur license suggests
that you will have an opinion about amateur radio
regulation, but it gives no credence in and of
itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration.

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

...we could go on and on....

No we couldn't.

In general, what happens to the amateur radio service has a greater effect
on
licensed amateurs and those who want to be licensed amateurs than on the
general public.

But we weren't talking about "in general".

OK - then talk about the specific case of a specific poll, which was
what WA2SI was proposing.

Wahtoosey was proposing a poll
to vote on the code test as a qualfication for entry (to HF). Since you
"already have yours", such a poll (were it binding on FCC) would not effect
your entry into amateur radio, but would have a far greater effect on those
not yet licensed (the general public).

Who said it would be binding on the FCC?

And remember the other conditions of the poll: *Any* ham would have
the same vote.

Thus we could much more convincingly
argue that you should *not* be eligible to vote in the poll, but the general
(non-licensed) public *should* be eligible.

By that same logic, you should not be allowed to propose your
two-class learner permit system, because you've already "got yours".
And you "got yours" under far less draconian rules than you propose
for others.

One word: motivation.

Ah, yes, the old "motivation" card. We dealt with that back in 1996 at

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....mn.org&oe= U
TF-8&output=gplain

I wasn't online back then. Besides, would you want things to always
remain as they were in 1996?


Who are the people who would want to participate in a one-time survey on
Morse
code testing but who cannot even pass the Technician written test?

Wahtoosey

WHO?

didn't suggest a 'survey'. He talks about a poll where people
vote and democracy rules.

Is that bad? Are you against direct democracy and polling of those
most affected?

And the discussion was not about those who 'cannot even pass'. It was about
those who (for whatever reason of their own) have not become licensees.

You're avoiding the central issue. I think you know that if such a
poll were actually taken, you might not like the results.

More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?

Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
wrote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?


Well, I knew it would all eventually get down to that simple statement.

(To focus "on topic", the question was if there should
be a vote on whether or not the FCC should retain
Morse code as a test for HF licensing.)

N2EY asserts he has EARNED his HF access, presumably because he passed a
Morse test, and he encourages others to EARN it by the same means. I
support his right to have that opinion, and he need not apologize for it.

What I do not support is his assertion that 'others' (IOW, those who do not
share his opinion on Morse testing) are trying to 'trash' amateur radio.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: N2EY pleads ignorance about the 1966 statement on this topic since he
was "not online", so I will take the liberty to repeat it here.




















-----

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those who
really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming
is making it something to work for."

All of the above quotations, gathered from a recent thread,
were made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the
best for the Amateur Radio Service.

All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in
that they suggest that the examination process is the key to
ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are "worthy")
become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong kind of people"
get filtered out.

First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a
"graduation" exam.

Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" are
certainly hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations
do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other
measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefor it
is not the function of the examination process to determine (even
if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine if
he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should
be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement
that the examination process screens out lack of commitment.

Don't get me wrong here folks. I believe that the examination
process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge
and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash the
bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the spectrum,
but I have no expectation that the examination can filter out
"unworthy" applicants.

Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of
"worthy"?








: Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
: wrote.
:
: 73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid.


Your description of my analogy remains inaccurate.

ahhh, flaccidity!


Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.


The regulations affect those who are hams the most.

I always thought that self determination was a good thing.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio.


That's a passable analogy.

In most of the public parks I know, what you can do is limited. And
you need a permit/license to do certain things in the park.


What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."


No, that's not it at all. You misunderstand what Bert and I are
saying.

Not to mention, a drastic oversimplification of the whole subject.
Comparison of a technical avocation such as the ARS to something like
buying a pavilion permit so you can have a picnic in one, falls apart
pretty quickly.


What we're saying is that on the single issue of continued Morse code
testing, it would be interesting to know what the opinions of *all*
licensed US hams, (not just a vocal minority) really are. That
includes amateurs of *all* license classes, not just those who have
passed a code test.

But they might not like what they hear.

To use your park analogy, it's like polling those who actually use a
park whether a specific change should be made.

DOH!

Nowhere is it proposed that the ability of others to comment would be
changed.

Of course this is simply a discussion point because there's no one who
would actually pay the expenses to conduct such a poll.

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA?


Nope.

I'm saying that I find it incredible that the allegedly most qualified
candidate for the highest office in the most populous and most in debt
state in
the Union is a movie actor with no real experience as a government
official.

I think it fits like a glove! Loonyland is a unique place, and needs to
be governed by unique people.


The Constitution contains
no such language.


I know. And nowhere do I say it should be a requirement. But do you
*really* think the new governor is going to better than the old one?

He has more experience wit' the ladies!

Am I the only one that sees the amazing hypocrisy in that little gem?

a whole bunch of snippage


You're avoiding the central issue. I think you know that if such a
poll were actually taken, you might not like the results.

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines". I'm just about
certain that the more non-amateurs included in any poll, the lower the
support for Morse code, and vice versa.

Let's have NASCAR fans determine ARS policy. And we can determine
NASCAR's rules. 8^)

More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

Perhaps "I've got mine, here is yours, have fun!" would be more
appropriate?


Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?

Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
wrote.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N2EY wrote:
(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.


I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

Almost all Americans can become hams without a code test. Been that way for
almost 13 years.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.

So you assume that the goals and purposes of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?

And let's consider a basic principle of Hans' "learner's permit" proposal:
forced upgrading.

If FCC adopted his proposal, all new hams would have to either get Extras
within 10 years or leave ham radio. He's said that if 80% of newcomers drop out
under such a system, that's OK with him.

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to pass the Extra
written within isn't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to
pass the Extra written within isn't.

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word 'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to
pass the Extra written within isn't.

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word
'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Having to pass the Extra is both unreasonable and unnecessary to be a ham or
remain a ham.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

So you assume that the goals and purposes
of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?


Yes.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

N2EY wrote:

(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.



I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.

Well, I don't know if disagreeing with the point is intentionally
"missing it" but okay.


This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans).

If you want to be more precise, they belong to the world.


As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

How you gonna educate them? Most people wouldn't have a clue what we
would be talking about. Do you propose an education system without
either Pro or Anti-code bias?

Should this poll include more input altogether, such as business
interests that would probably prefer us pesky hams to just go away?

Would the results of a poll consisting of people who knew nothing about
the ARS be representative of anything.

How are you going to approach anything like a knowledgable poll pool?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

How you gonna educate them? Most people
wouldn't have a clue what we would be talking
about. Do you propose an education system
without either Pro or Anti-code bias?

(snip)

How are you going to approach anything like
a knowledgable poll pool?


Actually, I'm not proposing anything at all. In my opinion, the FCC is
doing a fine job of regulating the Amateur Radio Service. If someone is
going to propose a poll to influence that, then the poll should take into
account everything the FCC must take into account (that includes all
Americans, not just those currently licensed in a particular radio service).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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