|
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: Your earlier comments: "Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth, international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational..." Please point out the portion in which you state that you're discussing government policy on child birth, NASA, etc. Yes, those are my earlier comments - which you've disingenuously taken out of context. There was nothing disingenuous about anything and there was nothing in your earlier statements to indicate that you were discussing government policy. If I wanted to make it clear that I was speaking of policy, I might have written something like, "I don't have a background in NASA policy or child birth policy". Child birth policy doesn't seem to make much sense does it? That paragraph was a reply to words you wrote about code testing - a government policy. The message that paragraph appeared in was about code testing - a government policy. The discussion that message appeared in was about code testing - a government policy. Please show me where, in all that, there was even a hint that we were not talking about government policy. Show me that your words indicate in any way that you were discussing child birth policy or NASA policy. The needs of other radio services? What need has any other service to tell hams which modes to use? How would a great number of hams using morse be less worthy of the "massive" frequencies we have for our use? This is not, and has never been, about the "use" of code, Dave. That isn't what your words say. Look at 'em and see if you can find any words about morse *use*. If you can't find them, perhaps I can provide a quote. This discussion is about a testing requirement. And, from that perspective, I've already addressed other radio services in my last message. But, since you seem to have missed it (or decided to chop it up rather than look at it as a whole), I'll repeat it here... As I've already stated, if we're going to remain a valuable radio service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio services (CB), we must consider the needs of the other radio services when discussing any licensing issue - including code testing. The FCC did exactly that in the Report & Order following the last round of restructuring when they looked at personal communication services, satellite communications, fiber optic communications, high definition television systems, and police, fire, and rescue communications. In that Report & Order, the FCC stated that "...no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear" and that "...the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." Finally, the FCC said, "...reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." Simple statement of fact. No new system has been developed. Yet thousands of radio amateurs use morse daily. Again, this is not about the "use" of code, Dave. Those same radio amateurs, and any others who want to join them, can and will continue to freely "use" code long after any testing requirement is gone. Maybe it could--if you believe that 5 wpm constitutes "emphasis". It is "emphasis" compared to the other operating modes, and compared to where this country needs expertise (see FCC statements above). I strongly disagree that a five word per minute morse test indicates emphasis. Additionally, nothing precludes anyone from developing expertise though "where this country needs expertise" hasn't been defined. If you'd like to take the position that a five word per minute code test is a huge hurdle for those who could develop some technical expertise if they could only obtain HF amateur radio access, I'll play along. Dave K8MN |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute "member" or "prominent member". I'm a member (you'll have to ask K0CKB if my member is considered "prominent" (sic)). HA! Good one. No thanks, Hans. If Mrs Hans is happy, then I'm happy. Thanks for the spelink crection. I support more rigorous technical exams for full privileges, to which you have expressed some rather strenuous opposition. Go figure! I don't recall having a problem with the qualifications of your second license. Did I say that? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message snippage Two questions... 1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen? They don't have to be Board members, Bill. And I don't have their names off the top of my head. If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute "member" or "prominent member". Although I think that's almost like saying a person's argument is invalid because they made a typo. Bottom line, without names, the statement is grossly misleading as you apear to try and broaden your claim to NCI in general... which is absolutely false. Bottom line, I have never accused NCI of having any particular opinion. I wrote: Instead, some members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me. Back to now: Who is broadening any claim? I even put unofficial opinions on my sentence. Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if the member outs him or her self. I don't like Han's entry level license requirement either. He's a member. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote: My guess on the debate of the future is one of testing regimen. I predict that a new movement will arise that views testing per se as an unnecessary nuisance, and will agitate for simplification of the test, and eventually it's removal. I don't think so, Mike. While I do see comments here and there, I don't see a growing consensus for a need to change the written tests, much less a growing consensus on any specific change to those tests. I suspect the vast majority would agree those tests are needed and are just fine as they are. Instead, I hope we can finally focus on more fully using the frequencies we have. Of course, I don't see any growing consensus for that either, but one can hope. There are many and varied definitions of "consensus" among the newsgroupies in here. In the main, they consider "consensus" as being anything that they and their close acquaintences agree upon. :-) LHA |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote: My guess on the debate of the future is one of testing regimen. I predict that a new movement will arise that views testing per se as an unnecessary nuisance, and will agitate for simplification of the test, and eventually it's removal. I don't think so, Mike. While I do see comments here and there, I don't see a growing consensus for a need to change the written tests, much less a growing consensus on any specific change to those tests. Don't need a consensus. Just somebody or somebodys with an agenda. Like NCVEC's Gang of Four. I suspect the vast majority would agree those tests are needed and are just fine as they are. Sure - just like the vast majority might say that a single 5 wpm code test is needed and is just fine it is. Instead, I hope we can finally focus on more fully using the frequencies we have. How? What changes do you suggest to make that happen? And what does "more fully" mean in that context? Of course, I don't see any growing consensus for that either, but one can hope. Don't need a consensus... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if the member outs him or her self. "Closely guarded secret?!?" :-) Good grief, NCI members in here have been free with publishing their membership numbers. No one has been arrested for that yet. :-) So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members. :-) LHA |
|
ubject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/20/03 2:50 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if the member outs him or her self. "Closely guarded secret?!?" Good grief, NCI members in here have been free with publishing their membership numbers. No one has been arrested for that yet. It's sad to have to point out the obvious, but a "membrship number" is not the same as the number of members. So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members. Check their annual postal statement. It's a violation for them to purjure that, and it delineates the number of "paid subscriptions" (ie: paid-up members) Steve, K4YZ |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com