"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/

"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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) The discussion I was engaged
in w/Bill, K2UNK, concerned the
"character" aspect of Morse code
testing. (snip)

(snip) Well Dwight, the above is the
issue that Bill, JEP, Kim, Jim, and I
were discussing. Get it yet?


However, I wasn't discussing anything with Bill, Jep, Kim, or you. I
responded to something Jim had said and we had exchanged several messages on
that subject (with the subject clearly stated).


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.


In case you haven't noticed, the subject you're discussing isn't the
subject listed in the subject line of this thread. The subject you're
discussing spun off from that original discussion, as the subject Jim and I
were discussing spun off from yours. That's fairly typical of newsgroup
discussions. Therefore, I think it's fairly important to know what is being
discussed before making comments, especially comments about the participants
(not the subject, but the participants - you said, "Kim's got it, (snip)
Bill's got it too, (snip) Dwight No comment."). Enough said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
Enough said.

Agreed...por fin!

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"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.


Bert: I just noticed this. I cannot believe you said that. I cannot
believe you are acting like that. I *GET* that you like CW testing and you
should *GET* that I don't. THAT is all there is to *GET*. It's that
simple.

Kim W5TIT


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/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"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.


Bert: I just noticed this. I cannot believe you said that. I cannot
believe you are acting like that.

Why sure I said it…and I'm not even "acting." (As in pretending, get
it? That was a joke…a little levity.)

I *GET* that you like CW testing and you should *GET* that I don't.

I fine with that and stated as such. To clarify, you can substitute
"Kim's got it, (it being my opinion) but doesn't agree with it."

THAT is all there is to *GET*. It's that simple.

Not in my opinion. IMNSHO, folks are a tad too quick to remove the
character aspect from many daily activities, both professional and
personal. How many times have you heard "It's just business, nothing
personal" or "It's unfortunate, but it's the bottom line that
matters." Usually when you hear these words, it's in conjunction with
actions that are going to adversely affect somebody's life. I've seen
folks that have put in twenty plus loyal years of some seriously hard
work for a company and get released just so the bottom line showed a
ten percent profit margin as opposed to nine. (IOW, double instead of
single digit growth.) While there are many valid "business" reasons
that can be quoted to defend this, there are some moral or "character"
issues involved here. I know it wasn't always like this and at some
point in history loyalty was rewarded with loyalty at many companies.
That's a professional example.

At 5-wpm, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Element 1 is about
forcing people to become "proficient" in a mode, whether they plan on
using it OTA or not. Perhaps 13 or 20, but certainly not 5-wpm. The
FCC actually has some references to character, Jim, N2EY has provided
an example. I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

Furthermore, I think that many of the folks want to do away with the
character aspect solely to remove a valid argument against the removal
of Element 1. ("But the FCC…, but the FCC…, but the FCC…") Just like
the professional who don't want to feel bad about "making the
unpopular decision" or following "good business practice" while
legitimately shafting good employees. So now we have a whole
generation of young folks that are prepared to enter the workplace,
possibly "earn" their way into a position where they can do some harm,
but won't care because they were taught that it's ok to step on and
use others as long as it fits a prescribed business plan. What'll it
be like in another sixty or seventy years?

It ain't so simple, Kim…at least not to this observer. Character means
something…in all of life's aspect. A hobby and/or service called
Amateur Radio is just one of them.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote

I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor
anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a
certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures.
Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally
floats to the surface around rrap?

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those
who really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.",
or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming is
making it something to work for.", or..

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote

I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor
anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a
certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures.
Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally
floats to the surface around rrap?

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those
who really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.",
or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming is
making it something to work for.", or..
.
"My opinion is that any obstacle you put in the way to any
achievement guarantees that only those with dedication and
strong interest will get there."

All of the above quotations, gathered from rrap threads, were
made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the best
for the Amateur Radio Service.

All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in
that they suggest that the examination process is the key to
ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are
"worthy") become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong
kind of people" get filtered out.

First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a
"graduation" exam.

Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" might
be hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations
do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other
measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefore it
is not the function of the examination process to determine (even
if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine
if he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should
be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement that
the examination process screens out applicants who lack
"commitment".

Don't get me wrong here, folks. I believe that the examination
process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge
and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash
the bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the
spectrum. I am not even suggesting that Morse testing is a
"good thing" or a "poor idea". But I have no expectation that
ANY examination can filter out "unworthy" applicants who lack
the proper dedication or motivation.

Sounds eminently reasonable to me...


Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of "worthy"?

Heh heh heh heh...EVERY self-righteous person who insists
that all MUST do as they did...:-) :-) :-) :-)

The regulars in here already have done that...

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote

I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor
anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a
certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures.
Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally
floats to the surface around rrap?

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those
who really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.",
or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming is
making it something to work for.", or..
.
"My opinion is that any obstacle you put in the way to any
achievement guarantees that only those with dedication and
strong interest will get there."

All of the above quotations, gathered from rrap threads, were
made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the best
for the Amateur Radio Service.

All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in
that they suggest that the examination process is the key to
ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are
"worthy") become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong
kind of people" get filtered out.

First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a
"graduation" exam.

Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" might
be hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations
do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other
measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefore it
is not the function of the examination process to determine (even
if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine
if he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should
be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement that
the examination process screens out applicants who lack
"commitment".

Don't get me wrong here, folks. I believe that the examination
process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge
and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash
the bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the
spectrum. I am not even suggesting that Morse testing is a
"good thing" or a "poor idea". But I have no expectation that
ANY examination can filter out "unworthy" applicants who lack
the proper dedication or motivation.

Sounds eminently reasonable to me...


Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of "worthy"?

Heh heh heh heh...EVERY self-righteous person who insists
that all MUST do as they did...:-) :-) :-) :-)

The regulars in here already have done that...

LHA

EVERY one of them (the self-righteous), to a man have done so.

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

Not in my opinion. IMNSHO, folks are a tad too quick to remove the
character aspect from many daily activities, both professional and
personal. How many times have you heard "It's just business, nothing
personal" or "It's unfortunate, but it's the bottom line that
matters." Usually when you hear these words, it's in conjunction with
actions that are going to adversely affect somebody's life. I've seen
folks that have put in twenty plus loyal years of some seriously hard
work for a company and get released just so the bottom line showed a
ten percent profit margin as opposed to nine. (IOW, double instead of
single digit growth.) While there are many valid "business" reasons
that can be quoted to defend this, there are some moral or "character"
issues involved here. I know it wasn't always like this and at some
point in history loyalty was rewarded with loyalty at many companies.
That's a professional example.

This sort of thing is also why CC&Rs have proliferated, and are actually
*supported* by many people. It comes from the bitter experience of
having neighbors who do not have shared community values to take
reasonable care of their properties. But ordinances and CC&Rs cannot
replace the spirit of being a good neighbor.

At 5-wpm, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Element 1 is about
forcing people to become "proficient" in a mode, whether they plan on
using it OTA or not. Perhaps 13 or 20, but certainly not 5-wpm. The
FCC actually has some references to character, Jim, N2EY has provided
an example. I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: There are very few prospective
hams who already know enough Morse Code to pass the test. And it cannot
be learned (in most cases, anyway) by reading a book or watching a video or
doing a bit of this and that here and there. So it takes a bit of "personal
investment" by the prospective ham, and the result is a skill specific to
amateur radio. I think that specificity is what bothers some folks.

Furthermore, I think that many of the folks want to do away with the
character aspect solely to remove a valid argument against the removal
of Element 1. ("But the FCC…, but the FCC…, but the FCC…")

FCC allows all sorts of things that are not in the best interest of the ARS. In
part this is due to lack of resources.

Does anyone think that BPL can't be bad for amateur radio because FCC is
allowing it?

Was it a good thing that FCC didn't go after that pop star or the network for
saying the F-word on broadcast TV?

Just like
the professional who don't want to feel bad about "making the
unpopular decision" or following "good business practice" while
legitimately shafting good employees. So now we have a whole
generation of young folks that are prepared to enter the workplace,
possibly "earn" their way into a position where they can do some harm,
but won't care because they were taught that it's ok to step on and
use others as long as it fits a prescribed business plan. What'll it
be like in another sixty or seventy years?

What's it like now? Remember Michael Milliken - "Greed is good"? Or how about
Enron, WorldCom, etc.? Those are just the folks who got caught.

It ain't so simple, Kim…at least not to this observer. Character means
something…in all of life's aspect. A hobby and/or service called
Amateur Radio is just one of them.

Exactly.

And to those who say "Who is to be the arbiter?" the answer is simple: Anyone
who proposes requirements - or the removal of them - is being the arbiter.

73 de Jim, N2EY