|
In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "JEP" wrote in message . com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. It should be obvious, Bill. US ham radio is all about "working DX on HF with CW." It is against the law to operate on HF without morsemanship. Probably the law of physics, even.........! :-) LHA |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message om... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. Of course...it was STARTED by a 20 WPM code-tested Extra. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. Yes, make those heathen no-coders sit in the back of the EM bus! Banish them to VHF and above! No-coders "don't belong" on HF! IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." And some olde tyme hammes have been hoisting too many at a bar. Ah! "Mass petition!" How dare no-coders do that! Ahem...take a look at the carbon-copy Comments on the FISTS petition. Would you like to halt "mass petitioning" against CW testing? 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) Of course. US ham radio is all about "working DX on HF with CW." Emphasis on CW. Morsemanship. Just like it was in the 1930s. I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. Not all ascribe to the "morse is best" notion, either. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. Well then, it's all about pride in being better than most, isn't it? In 2003 morsemanship for licensing is an Artificial Standard. If you want to retitle Part 97 the "Aritificial Radiotelegraphy Servce," be my guest. LHA |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL. Absolutely NONE, Michael. How do I know that, you may ask? Why the ARRL "told me" that in print for years... :-) LHA |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: None as the ARS would have remained closed down after World War I. All of you olde tyme hammes were around then, I can't fault such expert advice... There was no intent on the government part to ever re-establish those privileges. While this is in the distant past, we don't have to look too far back to see loss of spectrum and proposals from the government for loss of spectrum. Absolutely...look at all the "lost spectrum" over the last 24 years! LHA |
In article ,
(N2EY) writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian entry level license been going which restricts those hams to commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs "OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham. I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical inconsistencies in the written testing.... [nobody can realistically expect you to "shut up," jimmie...:-) ] The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to exist in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97 thing and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not being *allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is simply a bad idea. It would *encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers rather than their own ingenuity. So, where is the official, certified, withoutadoubtaccurate POLL on how many of today's hams are appliance operators and how many use their homebuilts as their main radio? What's the percentage of appliance operators? 97%? 98%? 99%? Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been in taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that sort of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE degrees, a career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd had to use only "approved" gear. and A few hundred thousand EEs have made career paths WITHOUT getting a ham license first. IEEE has a bunch of them in their membership. Are they in the "never would have happened" category? Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO). Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham slows down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble. Add to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means adequate to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order to sign off on another's work. :-) Right on...like every Extra is an automatic EE who can "certify" a piece of work. Nooo...for too many Extras, a Tx without a morse key attachment thingy is a FAILED design! Would probably get an automatic REJECT tag if it had a microphone attached... And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve? Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams' creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't think so. What's the percentage of US amateurs operating "appliance rigs?" Do all hams make their "Southgate Type 7" rigs their main one? [what IS a "Southgate Type 7?" don't show up on a search...] Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test... no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code to operate the Novice segments. Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech, and was tested for in the Novice when it was available. Nobody can operate on HF without morse code knowledge and skill. "Everyone knows that." That's why all the other radio services on HF demand their ops learn, love, honor, and obey morse code. Don't they? I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to understand that. But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks who want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the "21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it projects. Terrible attitude. Clearly not what St. Hiram would have approved in His day. Never mind that the NCVEC leaders are 20 WPM code tested Extras. Never mind that NCI was begun by a 20 WPM code tested Extra. Everyone MUST demonstrate morse skill in order to operate on HF. It's the divine law of physics. A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never imagined that cb would get out of their control... In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming. Absolutely. Unlike the olde tyme hammes the FCC is "obviously" deficient and certainly was in 1958. Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare the FCC allow "civilians" on HF without the morse test? And on an old, underused ham band, too! Imagine...NO test at all to get a license to operate on HF some 45 years ago! Terrible, terrible, terrible...! Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset, even though all of the indications were there. Well, YOU "knew" it all 45 years ago, didn't you? :-) The big mistake, in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via Radio Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially once they became all solid state. All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC! Not in 1958. But...you "knew" all about that 45 years ago... Me, I only lived through it as an adult, watched it happen. Since "CB" (Class D under the original rules) was on HF and I'm not "morse qualified" by test, I can't possibly judge anything like that... :-) The whole reason that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal, short-range communications. Particularly mobile. God forbid that "Everyman" should get on HF without being morse tested! Sacrilege! Heresy! And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL. "lookit?" [a kit for a toilet? :-) ] How does BPL get into this? That's a WIRED communications thing. The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for ham radio. Only tried and true HF morsemen "Know What Is Best For Radio!" Don't know morse? Shove them in the back of the EM bus up on VHF and higher. HF belongs to morsemen! They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of balancing all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and under various forms of pressure. In civil radio in the USA, the FCC is THE LAW. So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC. Only tried and true HF Morsemen Know What Is Best For Ham Radio! LHA |
In article .net, "KŘHB"
writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote Only on a one-time basis. If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the "fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules. Flawless accuracy, bonded and certified by independent authorities, even comes with a gilt-edged certificate of compliance (suitable for framing). Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive than the current General discriminates against new applicants. They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to simplify the overall license structure. Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience. Flawless logic..."everyone knows" that morse code is an absolute requirement to operate on HF...that's why all the other users of HF require all HF operators to know, use, and love morse code. Don't they? The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix." Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow". The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message. Yes, we are all aware that YOUR PLAN is logical without peer. Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical, inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc. That is a given. LHA |
In article k.net, "KŘHB"
writes: Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and dangerous. What next, reporting Bill to Homeland Security?!? :-) LHA |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: "KŘHB" wrote in message hlink.net... The FCC doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof would be on those that oppose what was done. Government regulations have a presumption of legality to start with. The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix." Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow". The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message. Cheerios and bran flakes to you to, Careful, Bill, Hans might report you to somebody...or, at least, vote against you in the next election... :-) LHA |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Put a friggin asterisk next to their call, like Jim said. * = code lover. Voluntarily added, for the CW fans. No biggie. -whatever- |
Steveo wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: Be an example of what you think a ham ought to be. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Should a ham be like N8WWM!? http://tinyurl.com/q3xp No comment, Dee D? I'm in Ohio too. ;) (replying from rec.radio.cb, where n8wwm hangs out) |
"KŘHB" wrote in message hlink.net... I wrote: If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the "fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules. Bill Sohl blew it off with ...... Doesn't bother me. Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and dangerous. I can't drive within the speed limit either :-) Isn't it amazing no great harm was encountered when all those hams in the 50s/60s only had to be General for full priviliges? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"KŘHB" wrote in message link.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote Only on a one-time basis. If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the "fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules. Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive than the current General discriminates against new applicants. They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to simplify the overall license structure. Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience. So how come when the Generals "lost" privileges in 1968 they didn't win that same argument...i.e. you can't take privileges from me because the new requirements aren't justified since I already had those privileges via a lower class license? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"KŘHB" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly if they were willing to retest for the same license? It's a learners permit, NOT a license. If they couldn't/didn't learn enough in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously not qualified for a license. 73, de Hans, K0HB PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a learners permit. Class "A" is a license. If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then they really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether or not it is renewable. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Jim and Steve insist they be self-taught to meet the Basis and Purpose. I propose that they also self-supervise, and the reduced power level keeps them and others out of harms way. 73, Brian |
Steveo wrote in message ...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups end up being worthless tripe. Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised. |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: First off, there's bound to be disagreement about what constitutes a "rational relationship" Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive, what do we use? If we use power (as Hans suggests), there's little incentive for QRP and low power folks to upgrade. The irony, however, is that I would bet most people that are dedicated QRPers are much more tehnically oriented to begin with and more likly to upgrade. Agreed! And you can bet that most dedicated QRPers are also primarily CW ops. On the other hand, IF a QRPer is content with the entry level power limits and doesn't choose to upgrade, what's the harm? Depends on the observer, really. OK, as yourself as the observer, what's the harm? One can look at all those that don't upgrade today...even with spectrum privileges as the enhancement...to see folks that are content at their current license level and are also good hams. Yet there are those who claim that large numbers of "technically oriented" hams *would* upgrade except for the "barrier" of the code test...... And you well know I'm not one of those that make that claim. And since we're supposed to use the minimum power required by the situation anyway..... True, but the FCC has never made a big case of checking to see that everyone is running at the least practical power. Additionally, I suspect the FCC concern on the "least power" is driven more by those running "big" power rather than anyone run a basic rig of 100 watts or less. Exactly. Also there's the interference considerations. If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the incentive? I don't see modes as an incentive. Then there's not much left. There's also the question of enforcement. You can tell right away if someone is outside their allocated spectrum, but power is another issue. Yet it has been an aspect of Novice license for over 50 years. I agree the enforcement would have its problems, but I suspect the gross violations could be detected (e.g. if limit is 200 watts and someone is running a kilowatt). Depends on the antenna and conditions. On HF I have heard amazing signals from QRP stations because of really good antennas. And really poor signals from QRO stations because of poor antennas. But (IMHO) an occasional "great signal" would never be the only thing the FCC relied on for a notice of power violations. In the end, I believe "most" hams want to operate legally and will do so. That's because it's part of the tradition and culture of amateur radio to do so, not because of large amounts of enforcement. I'm all for more and better enforcement, but it's clear that those who think Riley can do it all are mistaken. Agreed. Those that might run double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are only fooling themselves. Big difference between 400 vs. 200 hp under the hood, or between 80 MPH and 40 MPH on the highway. But it's only 3 dB on the air. Tough concept for some... Exactly my point. The FCC would likly focus on 1000W vs 200W, not the cheater running 400. What is the technical competency difference between an Extra operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz? Not much! Not any as I see it. Exactly.The difference is in operating skills and knowledge. The Extra part is where the DX often goes. Maybe we could tie some power limits to frequency spectrum which would then create a valid reason to not allow a lower level licesnse in that spectrum slot. I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you mean having some parts of a band allowed 1500 W and others only, say, 150 W, as is done now in the Novice parts of 80/40/15? Something to think about. Consider the discussion a "green-light" session. No proposal get's immediately shot down while trying to draw out as many new ideas/concepts as possible. But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional technical knowledge with more privileges. I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation. We can agree to disagree about the logic. But what should be used for an incentive besides spectrum? I agree with Hans that power certanly can be and has been. That's one possiblity. Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian entry level license been going which restricts those hams to commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs "OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham. I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical inconsistencies in the written testing.... Who wanted to shut you down? We can discuss all we want. I'd be careful, however, with certain ideas presented officially to FCC. The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to exist in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97 thing and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not being *allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is simply a bad idea. It would *encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers rather than their own ingenuity. I'll ask again, what IS the experience in Canada. What "bad" things are happening or not happening? Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been in taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that sort of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE degrees, a career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd had to use only "approved" gear. and But any "commercial" limitation would only apply to transmitters. That still leaves receiver circuits, etc to experiment with. In fact, no one needs any license to build and use their own homebrew receiver. Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO). Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham slows down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble. As above, not ALL projects would need approval. Also, can you give an idea about "could result in all kinds of trouble.?" Add to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means adequate to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order to sign off on another's work. You just created Catch 22. Based on your perspective, even Extras today shouldn't be allowed to homebrew without some additional "certification" because the current Extra syllabus is inadequate to ensure the Extra knows enough to homebrew. And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve? Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams' creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't think so. I didin't say there was any problem. I merely suggested another "incentive" that could better be tied to knowledge at a certain license level. The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g. Extra vs General, General vs Tech. It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter. It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doesn't flow or relate at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license. Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation. Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test... no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code to operate the Novice segments. Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech, and was tested for in the Novice when it was available. OK Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what about the General? Did I even hint at that. Not at all! The answer is basically no...although I have NO preference for or against changing license structure to a more rational basis for added privileges. My point is simply that being anticodetest does *not* necessarily mean someone wants to water dwon the writtens or eliminate license classes. THANK YOU Jim! You're welcome. I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to understand that. But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks who want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the "21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it projects. Those that truly want to "further reduce written testing" are but a handful and, except for W5YI, who you may put in that category, they don't speak at all for a significant majority of hams (IMHO, YMMV) One of its rallying cries is that we need more new hams at any cost, and not only is the code test scapegoated as a barrier, but also the written test. That paper came from a NCVEC committee, too, and you can bet they will push that agenda. Has that paper been submitted as official NCVEC input to the FCC? A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never imagined that cb would get out of their control... In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming. Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset, even though all of the indications were there. Water over the dam. The big mistake, in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via Radio Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially once they became all solid state. All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC! The whole reason that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal, short-range communications. Particularly mobile. And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL. The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for ham radio. They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of balancing all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and under various forms of pressure. So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC. That's why I am in ARRL and have been so since before NCI was even created. I'll restate my position on the purpose of NCI as it relates to me. Once the code testing is actually gone, then I'll cease to be an NCI member as the goal will have been achieved. If any of the other NCI directors/members want NCI to continue on a different, expanded purpose, they will do so without me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message arthlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message gle.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is no reason for states to test on manual gearbox autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing intervention needed from the state. My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up. Apparently the state DOES see a continuing need for PP or TPT... but does NOT see any public purpose, safety issue, or licensing ommision by not testing for manual gearboxes. Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) The point is that there is ZERO harm if a new ham never passes a code test and then decides to get on the air and jump into a code QSO to learn while doing. The state apparently thinks the same is true for manual gearbox driving and many other aspects of driving which aren't tested at all. I can and do drive an extended cab PU-truck pulling a 5000 lb trailer, combined length about 40 feet. To the best of my knowledge, no state tests anyone for that combination of skills. All that is needed is a regular driver's license. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com... (N2EY) wrote in message ... -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. You and Steve have a lot in common - being wrong. For Steve's assertion to be true, there would have to be a license class above Amateur Extra, and when a person achieved that, to fufill Steve's vision "self-training" there would have to be another level above that. And so on. Steve's assertion said NOTHING about any learning curve terminating with the Amateur Extra class license, Your Arrogantness. I.E., a merit badge system. No more than having my old grade cards from school years were "merit badges". No more than having my old EMS and nursing certifications are "merit badges" No more than...Ahhhh, never mind, you'll never get the point. Make your point rational and I'll get it. You're starting off the New Year on the wrong foot, Brain...By making assertions that are not substantiated by factual evidence. Welcome to 2004, MinnieLennie. Steve, K4YZ Steve, you said that the Basis and Purpose of self-learning cannot be achieved after a person has achieved their first license in a one-license system. That the Basis and Purpose can only be achieved in a multiple-license system. I asked if self-learning occurs after the Extra license is achieved. Give me a rational answer why it cannot occur after someone achieves a license in a one-license system. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it. Which standard, should there be separate licenses for 3 speed column, 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, which shift pattern? Apparently there is insufficient state concern to worry about passing a license test with automatic and then getting behind the wheel of a manual gearbox vehicle. It's been that way for decades now with no ill results. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. one of two answers: 1. It's a goofed up rule 2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code. Why wouldn't it be a good way to get anone on HF to practice also if there's no code test at all? That's the point, there is no rational justification for a CW mode skill test. The FCC has addressed and dismissed every known pro-code argument...as has the ITU also since Code is gone now as a mandatory treaty requirment. Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all, and there are plenty of goofed up rules. ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Len Over 21" wrote Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical, inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc. I knew you'd agree with me. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone hear how good or bad it is to HF comms? Updates? |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message m... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good enough, right? And none of this would have happened if only he had known code? Give me a break. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's no joke. The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Steveo ) wrote:
Hey Dee D. you see how he operates he is a troll and not only that he is an illegal freebander and HF bootlegger. Ask him about his Collins S-Line he operates without a license and why it is set up to transmit all over the spectrum he will go quiet real fast. Wrong again, do you need it beat in to you with a clue by four? You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent he has a real problem with anger first thing you know he is threatening to beat someone LOL. But the part about his bootleg Collins HF station is true he brags about it many times on rec.radio.cb ask him you know you hear about these pirating radio spectrum outlaws in the FCC reports but I bet you never met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. |
|
Steveo ) wrote:
Wrong again, do you need it beat in to you with a clue by four? You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent? A clue by four is violent? Leave Dee alone already, leghumper. Look at the thread you busted in on her so you started it dickwad. |
|
Steveo ) wrote:
You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent? A clue by four is violent? Leave Dee alone already, leghumper. Look at the thread you busted in on her so you started it dickwad. No, I've replied to Dee before, without your moderation. What made you decide to chime in with your worthless tripe this time? Because your a TROLLLLLL Steveo and Dee D. needs to know it she was clearly puzzled by you throwing N8WWMs name into the mix for no good reason other than to cause trouble and lets face it you need to be moderated, asslick. |
|
No No Not George wrote:
met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! -- ___________________________ Truckers get the best $20 whores |
Steveo wrote:
wrote: No No Not George wrote: met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where I live. No problems here. Take off an 's', and your driver sucks. But hey, I'm just sayin. -- ___________________________ Truckers get the best $20 whores |
wrote:
No No Not George wrote: met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where I live. No problems here. |
|
wrote:
Steveo wrote: wrote: No No Not George wrote: met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where I live. No problems here. Take off an 's', and your driver sucks. But hey, I'm just sayin. Oh believe me I've had all kinds of fun with this name. Funny thing is, I've never been a fan of his even, before the crash that rang his bell. I hope he files Workman's comp, and retires. He scares me. |
Steveo wrote:
He scares me. He would only scare me if he started driving in NW Georgia. -- ___________________________ Truckers get the best $20 whores |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (JEP) writes: And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. 73 es HNY de Bert WA2SI Yep, the dumbing down of America. The masses can't pass the test so we will make the test easier. Notice how they skirt the issue of having passed any test in front of a FCC examiner. No problem, olde tymer. I passed my First Phone test the first time in March, 1956, in the FCC's Chicago field office. Much later I went to the Long Beach, CA, field office to complete paperwork on a (now) PLMRS license. Real, live FCC employees, leased FCC office space! The VEC program is another farce. Why not put the little piece of paper in a corn flakes box. At least you would have breakfast. Make it MREs, mighty macho morseman. Update. Ham radio is a SERVICE! Hup, too, tree, foah...march, march, march... LHA Don't see where a morse test was ever required for a 1st phone. Did you ever pass a ham exem at the FCC office? Just another wanna be? |
JJ wrote in message ...
JEP wrote: Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. I just want to read their magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. Then go to your library and read it, assuming you know what a library is. Kinda hard to sit on crapper looking at QST if it's at the library. |
wrote:
Steveo wrote: He scares me. He would only scare me if he started driving in NW Georgia. F#cker better not be driving nextel! (still ain't use to saying nextel) Isn't cross posting great? |
In article .net, "KŘHB"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical, inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc. I knew you'd agree with me. How could it be otherwise? You are the Chief of the Boat in this SSBN, olde-tymer. If anyone disagrees with your plan you go ballistic. LHA |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com