"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?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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 -

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

(Len Over 21) wrote

All newcomers MUST do as they
did in order for "acceptance" to the group.

Not at all, Len. I am proposing a huge increase in newcomer
privileges with an entry level test far more elementary than the
current entry-level examination.

But I am also recommending, after a generous period with 'training
wheels', a more strenuous qualification for standard privileges than
currently exists. The QCAO and IOoDHW cries of "the unfairness of it
all" are deafening.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

(snip) But I am also recommending, after
a generous period with 'training wheels',
a more strenuous qualification for
standard privileges than currently exists.
The QCAO and IOoDHW cries of "the
unfairness of it all" are deafening.


The only thing I've heard is cries for proof that your license proposal
actually addresses a real need within the Amateur Radio Service - something
that fits the goals and purposes of that. What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC. ('Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't
thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. -- Douglas
Adams, THGttG)


With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

WHAT "logic" heap big chief?

All you've done so far is to ISSUE ORDERS OF THE DAY. No "logic,"
simply a set of demands which are labeled "TRUTH."

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC.

Fine. Convince the Commission you are god.

I'll be waiting, heap big chief. :-)

LHA

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

(snip) So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they
have both been refuted and discredited here
with elementary logic.

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have
to prove anything to you anyhow. I just have
to persuade the FCC. (snip)


Considering your nonsense about QCAO, negative comments about Technicians,
the lack of any valid reason for your proposal, the lack of any evidence
supporting your claims, and so forth, I think your real intent was proven
very nicely. If you've offered the same to the FCC, I suspect they will just
as easily see through your proposal.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

KØHB wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote


What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.


Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda snip


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

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) 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. (snip)


Several have said that, but I just don't see what can be added that
wouldn't fundamentality change the nature of the Amateur Radio Service. As I
see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals in
mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some benefit
to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild introduction
to the field of electronics. Since the first two (and international
goodwill) don't seem to be a consideration, I'll ignore those for now.

This leaves the last and a question about how far that should be taken.
Most are not clear at all about that. Some seem to suggest we add content to
more closely fit a college degree program. If so, do we add science,
history, social studies, general math, politics, language, art, economics,
health, and the other things colleges require? If not, can we honestly claim
the license is comprehensive training? But if we add those things, what
happens to the avocational nature of this activity?

I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're
lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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