Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..

Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...


Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their

goal

but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap.


What GAP?

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

You may want it made much easier to get a license, but I don't. Not a
filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way of ensuring that the
amateur has some level of acumen.

Otherwise, those who want little or no testing are just encouraged.





Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.


"Some members"? Who? It is always easy to make non-speciifc
accusations against unidentified "some members".

W5YI for one. I trust you have read his work?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

Siince the Novice license was discontinued, it has become more difficult to
become an amateur.

Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way
of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen.

I don't hold the opinion that the Morse test established that the applicant
has any "level of acumen" (check with Funk and Wagnalls before you respond).

In the world of Amateur Radio there are users and tinkerers. We need more
tinkerers, not more users.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

Siince the Novice license was discontinued, it has become more difficult to
become an amateur.

That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" (YMMV on what constitutes "more difficult") than passing both the
pre-restructuring 30 question Novice test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.

Sunuvagun!

Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way
of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen.

I don't hold the opinion that the Morse test established that the applicant
has any "level of acumen" (check with Funk and Wagnalls before you respond).

Nor does the written test....

In the world of Amateur Radio there are users and tinkerers. We need more
tinkerers, not more users.

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than before?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice
test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.


Yes. (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant
privileges.)


Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than
before?


What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted
language of rrap is English.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice
test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.



Yes. (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant
privileges.)

So you think it is not only more difficult, but it is nott difficult enough?

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than

before?


What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted
language of rrap is English.

Funny, I understood that. We'll work through this with you Hans. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice
test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.

Yes.

Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the written
test.

(But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant
privileges.)

Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees! In fact, in 2000 FCC drastically *reduced*
the written testing needed for a Tech. From two tests and pools, frowm which
were derived tests with a total of 65 questions down to one test of 35
questions and a combined pool.

FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate. The same FCC that sees "no
regulatory purpose" in code tests.

Is FCC mistaken?

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than
before?

What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"?

Sorry, Hans, I thought you had an engineering background. ;-)

I'll rephrase:

Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a given
time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote


That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice
test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.

Yes.


Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the written
test.

Balderdash!


(But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant
privileges.)


Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees! In fact, in 2000 FCC drastically *reduced*
the written testing needed for a Tech. From two tests and pools, frowm which
were derived tests with a total of 65 questions down to one test of 35
questions and a combined pool.

FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate. The same FCC that sees "no
regulatory purpose" in code tests.

Is FCC mistaken?

Another argument for the no test agenda:

We regularly hurtle at each other at combined speeds of 150 miles per
hour and more, wearing nothing but street clothes, and strapped into
devices carrying a large load of almomst explosivly flammable liquid.

And we're afraid to let people run radios that are putting out the same
power as the microwave oven over my stove?


Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than

before?

What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"?


Sorry, Hans, I thought you had an engineering background. ;-)

I'll rephrase:

Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a given
time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made?

Most of the tinkerers I know are pro-code test amateurs. Mine isn't a
scientific survey, but I've noticed a common thread among them. They are
very interested in RF technology. They are intensely interested in
Amateur radio. They really like getting their hands down into the
equipment. And whether this is related or not, they are also very
interested in Morse code. I've seen some cutting edge stuff made by
these same people.

I do not know one technician that has done as much as build his or her
own antenna. Well wait, I built a 1/4 wave ground plane for 2 meters
when I was a Tech. But that's it.

Based on that admittidly small sample, I would have to say that we are
putting out less tinkers per unit time, and almost certainly less per
hamcapita. (Hans, that means tinkerers per total numbe of Hams. 8^))

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote



Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the
written
test.


No, you don't "have it" at all, Jim.

Question for question, the Technician examination questions are noticeably
more difficult than those on the old Novice examination, and there are more
of them.


Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees!


Do you think they're right?

(1) FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate.
(2)The same FCC that sees "no regulatory purpose" in code tests.

Is FCC mistaken?

They are mistaken on point one. They are correct on point 2.

Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a
given
time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made?

I have no way of knowing for sure. Neither do you. It is my belief,
however, that the diminished emphasis on technical issues in the test, along
with the 'Ham Press' lack of emphasis on technical matters, is making the
Amateur Radio service less effective in recruiting those of an experimental
and tinkering bent.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the
written test.

No, you don't "have it" at all, Jim.

Then what am I missing?

Question for question, the Technician examination questions are noticeably
more difficult than those on the old Novice examination, and there are more
of them.

OK, fine. 5 more of them to be exact.

Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees!

Do you think they're right?

Nope. But they're the "expert agency"...

And I also disagree with them on code testing serving "no regulatory
purpose"...

(1) FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate.
(2)The same FCC that sees "no regulatory purpose" in code tests.

Is FCC mistaken?

They are mistaken on point one. They are correct on point 2.

I think they're worng on both points. YMMV

But the main point is that they *can* be wrong.

Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a
given time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made?

I have no way of knowing for sure. Neither do you.

That's true. But we can have impressions and opinions.

It is my belief,
however, that the diminished emphasis on technical issues in the test, along
with the 'Ham Press' lack of emphasis on technical matters, is making the
Amateur Radio service less effective in recruiting those of an experimental
and tinkering bent.

Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:28:46 GMT, K HB wrote:

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than
before?

What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted
language of rrap is English.

Yeah - to quote one of my favorite lines from the defunct "Amos and
Andy" TV show "speak to the man in Algebra, Andy"

Perhaps you can rephrase the question in the stone-furlong-fortnight
system of measurement. Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform
from reality to surreality.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane