wrote:
Steveo wrote:
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)

How is it that Park gets a ride before LaJoie?

He must have naked pics of someone and is blackmailing his
way.

Steveo wrote:
How is it that Park gets a ride before LaJoie?

He must have naked pics of someone and is blackmailing his
way.

Ewww. Bill France in drag at a Rainbow march. That's just so wrong, at
too many levels.

--
___________________________
Truckers get the best $20 whores

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose started
out as Techs and have since upgraded?

I don't know, exactly. Neither do you, I bet ;-)

But why does it matter?

There's a more poignant question that it reveals on the surface.

I'm glad somebody picked up on that!

Why *does*
it matter how many licensed amateurs upgrade at any given point

It's an indication of how well the ARS is meeting one of its B&Ps.

--and what
determines whether they do or not? Anyone truly interested in the growth of
the ARS needs to know those answers for effective marketing, esepecially if
the concern is driven from a desire to see the ARS grow, rather than
maintain numbers.

Agreed! And they also have to realize that there are a large number of
factors at work, not just the tests or the license structure.

For me, personally, I am happy with my Tech License and see no reason to
upgrade "just for the hell of it."

Exactly. You have the privs you want, and a callsign you like. What would
upgrading
get you that you don't have already?

The "just for the hell of it" idea has
never been a motivational factor for me in anything--personal, hobby, or
professional. So, what marketing campaign would: #1 *reach* me and, #2
motivate me to change my mind?

The only one I could think of would be to find something you want that you
*don't* have now, and make upgrading the way to get it. But since you
already have what you want, that's pretty tough to do.

It's like trying to sell me another refrigerator. The one I have now is 4 years
old, works
great, fits the available space and in general does the job. I'd like a bigger
one but
in this house I don't have room. The one I have is pretty energy-efficient, so
it a more
energy-efficient model would have to be a lot more efficient to make economic
sense.
I've never seen an icemaker that worked consistently, and they take up too much
freezer
room anyway. And after what this one cost to buy I'm not going to buy another
one "just
for the hell of it" either!

The ARRL has never reached me yet (can't speak for others) on a campaign to
motivate me to upgrade.

I don't think anyone could, because there's nothing that you want from an
upgrade.

Now when I got started, I couldn't wait to upgrade, because I wanted full
access to
the bands - all the bands. The requirements were no big deal - the worst of it
was
the 2 year wait between Advanced and Extra. (Try telling a 14 year old to wait
2
years for something...)

And it was cheaper to pay the license test fee than to build a 25 kHz
calibrator to
know the subband edges...;-)

But that's just me. Others were and are perfectly happy with what they've got.

The only thing the ARRL apparently successfully
*helps* with (but is not solely responsible for) is getting *new* hams
involved. If that statement is true--and it's probably more true than
not--then what does the ARRL need to do to move past just getting new folks
to the hobby/service of amateur radio?

Publicity is a big thing, but it can be hard to come by because most people
just aren't going to "get" amateur radio.

I suspect it has *nothing* to do
with license class or even requirements.

I think you're right.

When I decided to become a
licensed amateur radio operator I gave no thought at all to what it would
take to get my license; only that I needed to meet the requirements at hand.
It was only *after* I entered the service that any conginitive thought was
made as to license upgrades for the purpose of more bandwidth, privileges,
etc.

Exactly! Once you decided you wanted in, the tests were simply a task to be
performed to get the license.

You are assuming that if the Tech still had a code test, none of those
hams who
got Techs would have gotten a ham license. That's not a reasonable
assumption
at all.

I agree with that. Based on what I said above. At the moment I considered
the hobby/service of ham radio, I gave no thought to the idea that maybe the
requirements would change. Well, in fact, I gave no thought at all to the
requirements--other than that I had to meet them to achieve my ambition of
getting a license. I think there would be a preponderance of folks who
aren't even going to be that aware of requirements and necessity at the time
they are considering entering the ARS.

Sure.

If this thread is indeed still discussing the ARRL(?)--the ARRL itself needs
to consider these questions--probably needs to poll current hams and get a
professional marketing agency to figure out how to move beyond just being a
welcome mat and deciding if they also need to take on the task of getting
people to migrate to higher license classes or what those higher license
classes "get" you (because there may not always take a higher license
classes along with the privileges of the "extra" bandwidth, etc.).

But why should they upgrade if they're satisfied with what they've got - like
you are, Kim? Sure, offer help and information, but if someone's happy,
don;t push.

Look how many Advanceds and Generals have *not* upgraded to Extra, even though
all it takes is one little 50 question written test.

From 1979 to 1991, the number of US hams grew from about 350,000 to about
550,000 - all of them code-tested. From 1991 to 2003, the number grew from
about 550,000 to about 683,000. (If someone has more accurate numbers,
please
post them!). We had growth with code tests and growth without code tests.

It's those fluctuations in the numbers that need to be analyzed. What was
going on economically, politically, educationally, even migrationally, in
this country at those times? 200,000 vs. 133,000 in growth in two entirely
different phases of years, but the same number of years.

Well, a bunch of things, from the economy to the politics to lifestyle changes.
Then there's the 'net and cellphones and (as you pointed out some time back)
people having less time for organized hobbies and other activities.

I remember 20 years ago that lots of new hams came into amateur radio for
"honeydew" reasons. Whole families got their licenses (with code, btw) so
they could communicate with handhelds, mobiles, and home stations. Great
stuff - but now they all have cellphones.

And, Jim, I know
('least I think I know) you will agree that CW testing or not may have
nothing at all to do with the fact whether there was more or less growth at
either time.

EXACTLY!

And yet code testing - even the 5 wpm test that's all we have left - is held up
as some sort of "barrier" that is keeping out huge numbers of wonderful
people who will bring about a new Golden Age....

You know the sales pitch. "Bring amateur radio into the 21st century" and
all that. As if!

It could have nothing *at all* to do with testing structure
because, as I said, I didn't really take enough time to say, "wait a minute,
what are the requirements and will they ever change?," etc.

Sure. Oh, there will be a surge of growth - but then it will drop off.

Back in 1991 there were about 550,000 US hams, all of them code-tested. By
April of 2000 there were about 675,000 US hams, of which about 205,000
were
Techs. Since then the renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs clouds the issue.

How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace
them.


Now, there's a question that would be really hard to get answered, but it
could be done. However, based on this discussion alone (the appearance of
growth being influenced only by whether there is a CW test or not); I think
there are more people driven by their ambition that driven by requirements.
I think if I *want* to upgrade, I am going to do it regardless of test
requirements. Really.

Heck, Kim, from what I know of you, if you got it into your head that you
wanted
an Extra, you'd have one soon after the next VE session. Whatever it took.

Yes, there are some that are driven more by the
requirements--but I don't think it would end up being revealed that they are
in a majority at all. Test requirements are not a stifler or an
encouragement--either way.

Depends on the dropout rate. The important thing is you *assume* that we
wouldn't have any newcomers if they all had to pass code tests. That's
simply not a reasonable assumption.

As much as I, being on the side of eliminating a CW (or any other mode)
requirement, would like to jump on that bandwagon, I think it's a mistake to
do so and get any real positive results out of it. However, the sum of all
the avenues of non-CW testing folks is probably the only way there will ever
be enough support to end CW testing grin.

Maybe 50% is a slight stretch, but I'd guess not by a lot.

I'd say an awful lot. Look up how many new hams we got per year in the
'80s compared to the '90s.

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them
are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Out of 10 years of NCTs, only a few years worth would fall into that
category.

The Tech hasn't had a code test for almost 13 years.

Is that a good comparison? The Tech may not have...but what about the Tech+
who, incidentally, has HF privileges and was that the motivating factor or
did they just want a higher class of license.

Back before 1991, there was no choice. If somebody wanted a ham license they
had to do 5 wpm code. I know Techs who have been hams for 40+ years. Their
main interest is local work or VHF/UHF, and HF holds no appeal to them. I've
heard many say they're far more interested in talking to people who are
neighbors
and who they will actually interact with in person, rather than strangers
hundreds or
thousands of miles away that they will probably never meet and who they may
never
even QSO more than once.

How many Generals and Extras
are out there that upgraded (with or without CW) and don't ever really *use*
their privileges.

I know plenty who are inactive or nearly so because their lives simply don't
allow it. I went through several years when my only operating was 2 meter
FM because I didn't have the time or space for an HF station or antenna.

Remember that the ARRL's interest would also be in having
enough numbers of hams to drive their "use them or lose them" campaigns
(boring as they may be). This, by the way, is also why I believe the ARRL
is not the successful agency it would like to believe it is. It is very
apparent that the ARRL has failed to move past being a welcome mat.

Well, maybe, but there are other factors. For one, how many of the 683,000
hams in the database are active at all? With 10 year licenses, many of them
are SKs, or have lost interest, or are on hiatus for a while.

Just consider the SK situation. Suppose that just 2% of the amateur population
dies in any given year. In most cases, they will still be in the database until
their
license runs out. With 10 year licenses, that means the *average* SK stays in
the database for 5 years after he/she has gone to the Big Hamshack......

5 years at 2% a year means that 10% of the database is actually SKs. That's
over 68,000 hams!

FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs for 3 years, 8 months and 18
days.
If no rules changes are made, there will not be any Tech Pluses at all in
6 years, 3 months and 13 days from now.

Hmmmm, but I will still have the same privileges as I do as a Tech+.

Yep - as long as you keep old license documents showing that you held a T+.

So,
for someone who cares, where's the downside of that? I don't care if I'm
called a Tech or a Tech+--that concept is only important to some but not all
hams--but I do care whether I can get on the radio or not. And the radio I
care to get on is a FM transceiver using 2M predominantly (if at all
because, heck, I haven't been on the radio in over a year).

My point is simply that some people may point to the large number of Techs
as "proof" of something or other, denying the fact that a growing number of
them are actually Tech Pluses.

I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of 2000
are now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

See? Carl denies that a large number of Tech Pluses may be perfectly happy
with their licenses.

How many is "a lot"? The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by about half
since
April 2000. Some of that drop is due to upgrades. Some of it is due to
dropouts. And some of it is due to renewal as Techs.

I think Carl would find his statement to be false, or closer to false than
truth.

Me, too. Remember too that code waivers have been around even longer than
a no-code-test license, so anyone who wanted to upgrade and found the code
tests above 5 wpm to be a "barrier" could have done so by the waiver route.
And many did just that.

To say that we'd only have 340,000 hams today if all hams were code-tested
is simply not reasonable.

Here are some numbers:

In order to grow from 350K to 550K in 12 years, the number of newcomers
would
have to be at least 17,000 per year, even if there were no dropouts at
all.

Now let's suppose that the changes of 1991 never happened, and that we
were
still getting only 17,000 new hams per year. And suppose that the dropout
rate
of those 1991 hams from then to the present was 2.5% per year .(average
ham
"career" of 40 years).

Then in the 12 years, we'd have lost about 26% of those who were hams in
1991.
That's a loss of 143,000 hams, bringing the total down to 407,000. We'd
have
gained 204,000 new hams, bringing the total up to 611,000.

That's a long way from 340,000.

I agree, Jim. And, if NCI *and* the ARRL are ever going to change, or even
understand, fluctuations in the numbers and in the numbers of license
classes way more study and analysis needs to be done. Some, in fact, would
be better than none.

Sure - but it's tough to do studies because the target keeps changing. For
example, the FCC started issuing 10 year licenses (up from 5 years) back in
1984. That change means there were *no* expirations at all from 1989 to 1994.
How do we figure that into the numbers game? Or the changes in vanity call
rules that affect when licenses expire?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WA3MOJ wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo says...

WA3MOJ wrote:



Well I must be braindead too then.I hope that bpl comes to my town so I can
afford something besides a dial up connection.

As long as you're satisfied with something that doesn't work!

- Mike


Clueless newbie.

Got me pegged! 8^)

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose
started
out as Techs and have since upgraded?

I don't know, exactly. Neither do you, I bet ;-)

But why does it matter?

There's a more poignant question that it reveals on the surface.

I'm glad somebody picked up on that!


I like the between the line part of discussions; good "listening" will hear
what's really being said and going on in the background, right?


The only thing the ARRL apparently successfully
*helps* with (but is not solely responsible for) is getting *new* hams
involved. If that statement is true--and it's probably more true than
not--then what does the ARRL need to do to move past just getting new
folks
to the hobby/service of amateur radio?

Publicity is a big thing, but it can be hard to come by because most
people
just aren't going to "get" amateur radio.


I agree...and even if they "get" it, the draw of the internet, cellular
phones (heck we may as well start calling them cellular devices), etc. will
detract from any interest they may have in radio. People can now transmit
pictures, video, and even play games and chat over cellular phones. The
cost is substantially less than it was and nearly anyone can afford them
these days. I've heard of parents who give cellular phones to the kids so
they can all keep in touch (man, that woulda been a real bummer for
me...but)


When I decided to become a
licensed amateur radio operator I gave no thought at all to what it would
take to get my license; only that I needed to meet the requirements at
hand.
It was only *after* I entered the service that any conginitive thought
was
made as to license upgrades for the purpose of more bandwidth,
privileges,
etc.

Exactly! Once you decided you wanted in, the tests were simply a task to
be
performed to get the license.


And, it is *that* desire, emotion, need, want--whatever--that the ARRL needs
to capitalize on. I am not a professional marketer...I only dabble in the
concepts, but it can be done. Somehow. That moment of catching someone who
turns their eye and interest at exactly the right moment...what is it that
did that to them? Harness that, and the ARRL walks away from being a status
quo organization to getting more folks into the hobby...hmmm, I just did a
little bit of turnabout on my opinion there, didn't I? I criticized the
ARRL for being a welcome mat and that is exactly what I meant they should
be! What the criticism should be is that they *don't* have more strategies
to grow the ARS--they merely maintain.

I think the discussion got a little diluted with mention of the "to upgrade
or not to" issue. But, that's OK, I can keep up


If this thread is indeed still discussing the ARRL(?)--the ARRL itself
needs
to consider these questions--probably needs to poll current hams and get
a
professional marketing agency to figure out how to move beyond just being
a
welcome mat and deciding if they also need to take on the task of getting
people to migrate to higher license classes or what those higher license
classes "get" you (because there may not always take a higher license
classes along with the privileges of the "extra" bandwidth, etc.).

But why should they upgrade if they're satisfied with what they've got -
like
you are, Kim? Sure, offer help and information, but if someone's happy,
don;t push.


See? We got a little diluted, there. HOWEVER, I agree...there is no reason
people should feel pressured to upgrade; if they do they are buying into the
masses that attempt to make them feel that way. By the way, rewrite
*everything* up above about the ARRL from the perspective that what they
need to do is figure out how to move beyond being a status quo organization
and *become* a welcome mat for the ARS... Gads, I wasn't even
drinking...LOL


From 1979 to 1991, the number of US hams grew from about 350,000 to
about
550,000 - all of them code-tested. From 1991 to 2003, the number grew
from
about 550,000 to about 683,000. (If someone has more accurate numbers,
please
post them!). We had growth with code tests and growth without code
tests.

It's those fluctuations in the numbers that need to be analyzed. What
was
going on economically, politically, educationally, even migrationally, in
this country at those times? 200,000 vs. 133,000 in growth in two
entirely
different phases of years, but the same number of years.

Well, a bunch of things, from the economy to the politics to lifestyle
changes.
Then there's the 'net and cellphones and (as you pointed out some time
back)
people having less time for organized hobbies and other activities.


Yeah, and I truly think that the above is a hard thing to overcome in terms
of keeping the ARS out in front of people to get them interested. The only
thing I could think of that would work--and it would have to be a culture
thing rather than just an ARS thing--is working at it from a "tradition"
perspective. There will always be people who can inspire an appreciation
for tradition. And, there's a *lot* of tradition in ham radio.

If the games of football, basketball, etc., can "get" people, then the ARS
can. We also have to remember that it's probably a 50/50 effort between the
ARS and amateurs who can take up the torch for the ARS. And, as mentioned
above--we're running short on time.


And, Jim, I know
('least I think I know) you will agree that CW testing or not may have
nothing at all to do with the fact whether there was more or less growth
at
either time.

EXACTLY!

And yet code testing - even the 5 wpm test that's all we have left - is
held up
as some sort of "barrier" that is keeping out huge numbers of wonderful
people who will bring about a new Golden Age....


Psshawww, the CW test is no barrier and that is pure hogwash. There are
folks who post to this newsgroup who are bigger barriers to the ARS than
CW...


It could have nothing *at all* to do with testing structure
because, as I said, I didn't really take enough time to say, "wait a
minute,
what are the requirements and will they ever change?," etc.

Sure. Oh, there will be a surge of growth - but then it will drop off.

Back in 1991 there were about 550,000 US hams, all of them code-tested.
By
April of 2000 there were about 675,000 US hams, of which about 205,000
were
Techs. Since then the renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs clouds the issue.

How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace
them.


Now, there's a question that would be really hard to get answered, but it
could be done. However, based on this discussion alone (the appearance
of
growth being influenced only by whether there is a CW test or not); I
think
there are more people driven by their ambition that driven by
requirements.
I think if I *want* to upgrade, I am going to do it regardless of test
requirements. Really.

Heck, Kim, from what I know of you, if you got it into your head that you
wanted
an Extra, you'd have one soon after the next VE session. Whatever it took.


Uh oh...I am spending too much time here again


How many Generals and Extras
are out there that upgraded (with or without CW) and don't ever really
*use*
their privileges.

I know plenty who are inactive or nearly so because their lives simply
don't
allow it. I went through several years when my only operating was 2 meter
FM because I didn't have the time or space for an HF station or antenna.


Yep. And, I love the couch potatoe upgraders who sneer at those who don't
upgrade! It's so funny to hear them snarling and then ask them, "hey,
where's your HF setup?"


Remember that the ARRL's interest would also be in having
enough numbers of hams to drive their "use them or lose them" campaigns
(boring as they may be). This, by the way, is also why I believe the
ARRL
is not the successful agency it would like to believe it is. It is very
apparent that the ARRL has failed to move past being a welcome mat.

Well, maybe, but there are other factors. For one, how many of the 683,000
hams in the database are active at all? With 10 year licenses, many of
them
are SKs, or have lost interest, or are on hiatus for a while.

Just consider the SK situation. Suppose that just 2% of the amateur
population
dies in any given year. In most cases, they will still be in the database
until
their
license runs out. With 10 year licenses, that means the *average* SK stays
in
the database for 5 years after he/she has gone to the Big Hamshack......

5 years at 2% a year means that 10% of the database is actually SKs.
That's
over 68,000 hams!

FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs for 3 years, 8 months and 18
days.
If no rules changes are made, there will not be any Tech Pluses at all
in
6 years, 3 months and 13 days from now.

Hmmmm, but I will still have the same privileges as I do as a Tech+.

Yep - as long as you keep old license documents showing that you held a
T+.


ROFLMAO!!! Larry'll be so happy to hear that!


So,
for someone who cares, where's the downside of that? I don't care if I'm
called a Tech or a Tech+--that concept is only important to some but not
all
hams--but I do care whether I can get on the radio or not. And the radio
I
care to get on is a FM transceiver using 2M predominantly (if at all
because, heck, I haven't been on the radio in over a year).

My point is simply that some people may point to the large number of Techs
as "proof" of something or other, denying the fact that a growing number
of
them are actually Tech Pluses.


Oh, I know. I was "writing out loud." I looked my call up on QRZ today
(wow what a bunch of hits...but I digress) and I thought this was the year I
had to renew my license, but it's in 2008. I guess that has something to do
with changing my callsign...don't know, because it's been "around" ten years
that I've been licensed...or it seems so anyway.

I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of
2000
are now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

See? Carl denies that a large number of Tech Pluses may be perfectly happy
with their licenses.


Y'know...I didn't catch that the first time around. Is there an implication
from Carl that there should be some kind of stigma attached to being
"renewed at Techs with code credit"? I don't get that at all, if so. Are
there really people who would think anything of that?!


How many is "a lot"? The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by about
half
since
April 2000. Some of that drop is due to upgrades. Some of it is due to
dropouts. And some of it is due to renewal as Techs.

I think Carl would find his statement to be false, or closer to false
than
truth.

Me, too. Remember too that code waivers have been around even longer than
a no-code-test license, so anyone who wanted to upgrade and found the code
tests above 5 wpm to be a "barrier" could have done so by the waiver
route.
And many did just that.

To say that we'd only have 340,000 hams today if all hams were
code-tested
is simply not reasonable.

Here are some numbers:

In order to grow from 350K to 550K in 12 years, the number of newcomers
would
have to be at least 17,000 per year, even if there were no dropouts at
all.


Well, you've done some of the work for the ARRL...grin. And, they better
get busy!


Now let's suppose that the changes of 1991 never happened, and that we
were
still getting only 17,000 new hams per year. And suppose that the
dropout
rate
of those 1991 hams from then to the present was 2.5% per year .(average
ham
"career" of 40 years).

Then in the 12 years, we'd have lost about 26% of those who were hams
in
1991.
That's a loss of 143,000 hams, bringing the total down to 407,000. We'd
have
gained 204,000 new hams, bringing the total up to 611,000.

That's a long way from 340,000.

I agree, Jim. And, if NCI *and* the ARRL are ever going to change, or
even
understand, fluctuations in the numbers and in the numbers of license
classes way more study and analysis needs to be done. Some, in fact,
would
be better than none.

Sure - but it's tough to do studies because the target keeps changing. For
example, the FCC started issuing 10 year licenses (up from 5 years) back
in
1984. That change means there were *no* expirations at all from 1989 to
1994.
How do we figure that into the numbers game? Or the changes in vanity call
rules that affect when licenses expire?

73 de Jim, N2EY


The target may not be as elusive as that. The "spark" that gets ignited
with ham radio has nothing to do with "all that" and everything to do with
the fascination of picking up a microphone and talking into it (sorry CW
lovers...it's the truth for the majority). It's at the moment that the
interest is sparked that the "deal has to be made." In other words, I think
the only way to "grow" the ARS is to have venues (and I'm not talking about
ham radio clubs) for ham radio. Childrens' wards at hospitals, scouting and
other civil organizations, YM/YWCAs, etc. Why not develop a "Salvation
Army" of ham radio?

Oh good grief...I'm the trainer and I tell people every day...you came up
with the idea, you run with it. Uh uh...I was just "writing out loud again"
and I am going to go have a drink and forget it...grin

Kim W5TIT

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om...

It is only "tired" if you don't have the cajones to keep up,
Brain.

A little chest puffery?

It ain't braggin' if ya done it, Brain.

ULS will acknowledge that I did it.

It's not about "class distinctions", unless that's all you fixate
on, Brain. It's about meeting the requirements of the Basis and
Purpose of Part 97, and meeting Congress' expectation that in return
for our generous allocations.

Did that a long time ago.

Still puttering along at General, I see.

By the way, our allocations are by no means guaranteed. Too bad
people like you can't see past your own selfishness to see that.

Too bad people like you can't see it. Too busy being self-important.

I've been proactive in the Spectrum Protection bills, Brain.

Don't remember seeing your name or call in there anywhere.

And not for "self", but for everyone...Protect It Or Lose It.

I've very clearly stated on several occassions that my learning
curve didn't stop with my Extra.

Yet your climb up the ARS ladder did. Why, with a one license ARS
would learning stop???

In a small..repeat SMALL..percent, it wouldn't. But the majority
would.

Please stop being arrogant.

Rational argument is arrogance?

No, it's not. And when you offer something rational, we'll
discuss it. So far you have nothing rational to offer.

You couldn't be more wrong. Again.

I'm not the one who just made a very obvious assumption based
upon a personal prejudice, Brain.

State the assumption.

YOUR assertion that I "stated" that learning stops when you get
to Extra.

I never said anything of the like.

And we're STILL waiting for YOU to cite the post wherein I said
it...That request was four or five exchanges ago, and you ahve yet to
produce anything.

An assertion of fact without basis in fact is a lie. Why did you
lie?

State the personal prejudice.

Yours against me.

Why, if learning doesn't stop with the Amateur Extra exam, would it
stop with a one exam ARS?

This is a test in rational discussion. Do try your best to pass it.

FACTS prove that when people are not engaged with a challenge to
excel, they become complacent and stagnant.

Our entire society is based upon goal-oriented achivement. You
do just enough to "get by", then "get by" is all you get. You make
your mark on Wall Street, you get the keys to the executive washroom.

A tiered one does.

No more than a one license ARS.

Then this proves you ignorant of the facts, Brain.

Enlighten me.

We've tried. You've resisted.

Stebe, countless garments at the store claim "one size fits all."

A page from Daddy, I see.

Yes, many items CLAIM to be "one size fits all".

Now...DO they...?!?!

Unless you can provide some tangible examples that contradict
that?

Pantyhose.

Oooops...still doesn't work. Betcha I can find a pair of "one
size fits all" pantyhose that won't fit my 12 year old daugher OR
my ex-mother-in-law.

(Try again...everyone hates someone who wimps out the first time
they get their nose bloodied...)

That you percieve that I do means you have an inferiorty problem
that keeps you in a subjugated position. Deal with it, Brain.

You're much easier to deal with.

I dare say so.

Many people who share your problem always find it easier to solve
other peoples "problems" than to face their own.

Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some
government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false
achievements.

You are truly lost, Brain....wrapped up in symbology, rhetoric
and the need to denigrate and demean anything you cannot or will not
endeavor to understand or accept.

Pity you.

The King of Denigration has spoken.

It ain't denigration if it's true, Brain.

Sucks to be you.

Steve, K4YZ

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om...

It is only "tired" if you don't have the cajones to keep up,
Brain.

A little chest puffery?

It ain't braggin' if ya done it, Brain.

ULS will acknowledge that I did it.

It's not about "class distinctions", unless that's all you fixate
on, Brain. It's about meeting the requirements of the Basis and
Purpose of Part 97, and meeting Congress' expectation that in return
for our generous allocations.

Did that a long time ago.

Still puttering along at General, I see.

By the way, our allocations are by no means guaranteed. Too bad
people like you can't see past your own selfishness to see that.

Too bad people like you can't see it. Too busy being self-important.

I've been proactive in the Spectrum Protection bills, Brain.

Don't remember seeing your name or call in there anywhere.

And not for "self", but for everyone...Protect It Or Lose It.

I've very clearly stated on several occassions that my learning
curve didn't stop with my Extra.

Yet your climb up the ARS ladder did. Why, with a one license ARS
would learning stop???

In a small..repeat SMALL..percent, it wouldn't. But the majority
would.

Please stop being arrogant.

Rational argument is arrogance?

No, it's not. And when you offer something rational, we'll
discuss it. So far you have nothing rational to offer.

You couldn't be more wrong. Again.

I'm not the one who just made a very obvious assumption based
upon a personal prejudice, Brain.

State the assumption.

YOUR assertion that I "stated" that learning stops when you get
to Extra.

I never said anything of the like.

And we're STILL waiting for YOU to cite the post wherein I said
it...That request was four or five exchanges ago, and you ahve yet to
produce anything.

An assertion of fact without basis in fact is a lie. Why did you
lie?

State the personal prejudice.

Yours against me.

Why, if learning doesn't stop with the Amateur Extra exam, would it
stop with a one exam ARS?

This is a test in rational discussion. Do try your best to pass it.

FACTS prove that when people are not engaged with a challenge to
excel, they become complacent and stagnant.

Our entire society is based upon goal-oriented achivement. You
do just enough to "get by", then "get by" is all you get. You make
your mark on Wall Street, you get the keys to the executive washroom.

A tiered one does.

No more than a one license ARS.

Then this proves you ignorant of the facts, Brain.

Enlighten me.

We've tried. You've resisted.

Stebe, countless garments at the store claim "one size fits all."

A page from Daddy, I see.

Yes, many items CLAIM to be "one size fits all".

Now...DO they...?!?!

Unless you can provide some tangible examples that contradict
that?

Pantyhose.

Oooops...still doesn't work. Betcha I can find a pair of "one
size fits all" pantyhose that won't fit my 12 year old daugher OR
my ex-mother-in-law.

(Try again...everyone hates someone who wimps out the first time
they get their nose bloodied...)

That you percieve that I do means you have an inferiorty problem
that keeps you in a subjugated position. Deal with it, Brain.

You're much easier to deal with.

I dare say so.

Many people who share your problem always find it easier to solve
other peoples "problems" than to face their own.

Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some
government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false
achievements.

You are truly lost, Brain....wrapped up in symbology, rhetoric
and the need to denigrate and demean anything you cannot or will not
endeavor to understand or accept.

Pity you.

The King of Denigration has spoken.

It ain't denigration if it's true, Brain.

Sucks to be you.

Steve, K4YZ

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

Stebe, just because you can spell rational doesn't mean you are
rational.

OK...I will acept taht...however with the caveat that I am MORE
rational than you or your "mentor", Sir Creepy of Kalifornia

You make unsubstantiated assertions you cannot or will not back
up, then ask us to just accept it without the proof.

I merely commented on your Basis and Purpose comment. Then I backed
it up. You need to make a rational comment why the basis and purpose
is satisfied by inventive licensing, but cannot be satisfied by a one
license ARS.

Beacuse it's been PROVEN within the Amateur Community itself that
when rewards are withdrawn for achievement, that achievement stops.
How many people "upgraded" from General to Extra in the pre-Incentive
period, Brain?

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.

A "one license" system does not promote learning.

Why not? What License have you been working toward since you earned
Extra?

Registered Nurse.

GROL.

Commercial Pilot with Instructor and Instrument

A "one license" system promotes stagnation and mediocrity. Look
what a "classless" society did to Central Europe for 70+ years.

Are you just begging for Len to come in here with his Hitler remarks?

Ahhhhh, yes...Lennie and his assertions of affiliation with the
Nazis for anyone who dares to cross HIS version of Life In Radio.

YOUR mentor, Brain...YOU said so.

You are an idiot!

Not when compared to you, Brain.

As deftly pointed out by Jim, N2EY, the TRUE stagnation of the
Amateur Radio Service occured BEFORE Incentive Licensing.

Did not.

OK...Need to go over the number again, Brain?

250,000 BEFORE Incentive Licensing, over 600,000 after.

Is there something in that math I missed?

Was the way the FCC implemented it wrong? Sure it was. But the
system worked.

I asked if self-learning occurs after the Extra license is achieved.

Sure it does. And there are some cases where the licensee brings
his "self-learning" with him/her from an engineering
point-of-view...but thsoe folks are few and far between.

Give me a rational answer why it cannot occur after someone achieves a
license in a one-license system.

Can it occur? Sure it can.

Thank you. Finally an honest answer from one of you PCTA. I'll mark
my calendar.

You get LOTS of "honest answers". That you care to ignore them
is YOUR choice, not a lack of facts.

Does it usually or routinely occur?

Routinely. Again, you proactively ignore them.

Your bust.

Nope.

Doesn't occur after Extra either. And ex-communicated Jim's proposal
was for all the pools to be combined, so it was the equavilant of
Extra.

So, in the end, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Uh huh...right.

Now, here's one for YOU, Brain...cite for me some grand example
of "one size fits all and promotes learning" example from ANY aspect
of our society...One that can't be refuted at some level.

No.

That's what I thought.

I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.

Steve, K4YZ

Oh, please do.

Sorry...I have things to do.

Steve, K4YZ

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/25/03 5:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Sounds like what we've inherited today. Let's do something rational
instead.

It will be interesting to see what YOU call "rational".

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, you never pay attention, do you?

I've said it many, many times. One amateur radio service, one amateur
radio license. And maybe a learners permit as Hans suggests.

How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?

You will of course expect the licensing exam to be equivalent to the sum of
knowledge required for Tech, General and Extra for this single full
privilege license.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
Sure - but it's tough to do studies because the target keeps changing. For
example, the FCC started issuing 10 year licenses (up from 5 years) back
in
1984. That change means there were *no* expirations at all from 1989 to
1994.
How do we figure that into the numbers game? Or the changes in vanity call
rules that affect when licenses expire?

73 de Jim, N2EY


After playing around search the FCC database, the previous license of the
vanity holder appears to be marked as terminated not expired so that the
vanity call rules do not effect the numbers if the search is done correctly.
If one searches for expired only, what they get as a result are only those
that have lapsed due to non-renewal not those terminated due to changes in
call sign and not those terminated due to disciplinary actions by the FCC.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE