"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Unfortunately, I believe I have heard
the story of which Jim speaks...or at
least one exactly like it. (snip)


Okay, I'll try one more time. Please read back over what I've said.
Nothing was said by me about a denial of license based on other grounds. We
were talking about license testing and everything I said had to do with
license testing. What does Jim's story have to do with license testing?
Instead, not able to respond to the actual question raised (character
testing within the license tests), Jim has deceitfully, but clearly
successfully, introduced another subject (denial of license) to undermine my
earlier statements about license testing.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"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/

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

Point is, FCC has a wide latitude as far as testing and license requirements
goes. You may not like the concept but The Congress does.

Didja know that in 1940 FCC required all US hams to either sign a loyalty oath
or turn in their licenses? While not exactly a "character test", you can bet
that some hams' backgrounds were checked.

Such things seemed far-fetched a few years ago. Not any more.

Nice talking to you, Jim.

You too, Dwight.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
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.


Hoo, I wonder how that would stand up in the courts! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Unfortunately, I believe I have heard
the story of which Jim speaks...or at
least one exactly like it. (snip)

Okay, I'll try one more time. Please read back over what I've said.
Nothing was said by me about a denial of license based on other grounds. We
were talking about license testing and everything I said had to do with
license testing. What does Jim's story have to do with license testing?
Instead, not able to respond to the actual question raised (character
testing within the license tests), Jim has deceitfully, but clearly
successfully, introduced another subject (denial of license) to undermine my
earlier statements about license testing.

No one in this newsgroup is allowed to maintain a civil debate.

It should be a fact of life in this venue that morse code testing is a
vital necessity to show the strength of character to the Amateur
Community. Has nothing to do with federal regulations. It is all about
mindset and flights of fantasy.

LHA

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Unfortunately, I believe I have heard
the story of which Jim speaks...or at
least one exactly like it. (snip)


Okay, I'll try one more time. Please read back over what I've said.
Nothing was said by me about a denial of license based on other grounds.
We
were talking about license testing and everything I said had to do with
license testing. What does Jim's story have to do with license testing?
Instead, not able to respond to the actual question raised (character
testing within the license tests), Jim has deceitfully, but clearly
successfully, introduced another subject (denial of license) to undermine
my
earlier statements about license testing.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I thought he'd been responding to your analogy that "character" is not
something to be tested for (paraphrasing there). Sorry...

Kim W5TIT