In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

What does Jim's story have to do with license testing?

Simple.

It shows that the FCC has very wide authority to set license test criteria,
including
such concepts as "character" and "discipline". Merely passing the tests is not
the only requirement for a license grant.

Normally the FCC assumes that all applicants for a ham license are "of good
character" unless there is a reason to suspect differently.

I think FCC could indeed legally implement Hans' one-shot learner license with
its upgrade-or-out provision. Their argument would be that someone who was a
ham for 10 years and yet c/wouldn't pass the full-privs test simply didn't have
the required "character" or "discipline" to stay in the ARS.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

What mode are those "foul mouthed yahoos" using? It isn't CW.....

Jim obviously isn't a DX'er,

That's right. Never claimed to be.

or he'd know about the infamous "pileup police"
shenanigans regularly heard around 14.023 +/-. I could send you some .wav
files that aren't even fit to air on rrap.

Sad. Very sad. Guess I'll not be a DX'er, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"JEP" wrote:

Service means just that. Broadcasters
have to do public service to keep
broadcastings. Why do you think they
do PSA's. No money involved, they
do it free. (snip)


Nonsense. What public service is performed by those in the Citizens Band
Radio Service? Or the Family Radio Service? Or what public service,
especially free public service, is provided by the radio services used by
business, commerce, or industry?

I'll play a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here, Dwight...There are
some very well respected REACT teams utilizing GMRS which is,
unfortunately, "Citizen's Band". (ie: Crest REACT in SoCal)

They are far and few between, however, and many of the more
functional REACT Teams have blended Amateur Radio into their teams.

(snip) You also would have to prove
that 75% of the amareurs provide a
public service. Lets see, chasing DX,
rag chewing with Barny down the
road and checking the weather
outside. Yep, thats sure public
service-----NOT!

After reading that, it is obvious you have no intent to honestly discuss
the issue. And, since I have no desire to provide you with an opportunity to
spread misinformation, I will refrain from further comment.

He is, at the very least, predisposed to trying to disparge the
Amateur Service.

Facts undermine his attack, however.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

It should be obvious, Bill. US ham radio is all about "working
DX on HF with CW."

Same old song, huh? You wrote it and you're the only one singing it.
HF amateur radio is many things to many people, but you aren't one of
them.

Thank God for small favors ! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

"N2EY" wrote



I think FCC could indeed legally implement Hans' one-shot learner license
with
its upgrade-or-out provision. Their argument would be that someone who was
a
ham for 10 years and yet c/wouldn't pass the full-privs test simply didn't
have
the required "character" or "discipline" to stay in the ARS.


Nice try, Jim, but that wouldn't be their argument at all.

Their argument would be that the individual had not yet demonstrated
knowledge of the technical qualifications for a standard license by passing
the required written examination, and their learners permit had expired. It
has nothing to do with "character" or "discipline".

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote:

It shows that the FCC has very wide
authority to set license test criteria,
including such concepts as
"character" and "discipline". (snip)


Nonsense. It would be virtually impossible to test character or discipline
in a radio license test. The FCC hasn't done it and probably wouldn't ever
attempt to do so. Nice talking to you, Jim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

I hate to say it, Jim, but this is one
of those intangibles that fall under
the catagory of "if you don't get it,
I can't explain it to you."

Kim's got it, but doesn't like it. I
can respect that. Bill's got it too,
but doesn't appear to want to let
on that he's got it. (Broken record
mode: But the FCC..., but the
FCC..., but the FCC...) Dwight?
No comment.


Excuse me, Bert. Before you continue discussing whether I "get"
something
or not, read back over what I've actually said and notice that absolutely
none of it had anything whatsoever to do with the separate issue raised by
Jim. We were talking about license testing. My comments had to do with
license testing. Jim changed the subject to license denial based on other
grounds. I've made no comments on that subject.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No Dwight, I will not excuse you. The discussion I was engaged in w/Bill,
K2UNK, concerned the "character" aspect of Morse code testing. (i.e.
demonstrating self-discipline by studying for and passing Element 1 for
increased privileges, regardless whether one plans on actually using CW OTA
or not.)

As for discussing whether or not you "get it," again...no comment. No
comment means no comment. You were only included because you were one of
three that commented re. the subject. I do notice that this is not the first
(or tenth, for that matter) time you've joined into a thread, (or a branch
thereof) pulled the subject in a different direction, and then whined about
a response by claiming that what you said had nothing to do with a
"separate" issue. Well Dwight, the above is the issue that Bill, JEP, Kim,
Jim, and I were discussing. Get it yet?

73 de Bert'
WA2SI