"garigue" wrote in message
news:T_HIb.17085$I07.49105@attbi_s53...

I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it.
I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it
degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why
but it wouldn't do any good.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash.

Dan/W4NTI

Which in turn Dan was IMHO due to the incentive debaucle. I think we all
need to kick our collective asses for allowing a lot of things to happen
over the years.

Film at 11 as this is New Years Eve ....

73 God Bless KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa



Totally agree.

Dan/W4NTI

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:23:19 GMT, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash.

He may have been the "external" cause but there were folks inside
the agency who did not understand or appreciate ham radio and could
not understand why any resources had to be expended in enforcement.
Then along came the bad years of CB running wild and things went
downhill fast.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Yes they can be. I've known several.
They too often fall in the "know it all"
category.


That hasn't been my experience. First, I haven't seen that many rule
violations across the board. Most operators tend to stick to the rules, or
at least make a darn good effort to do so. But, second, I certainly haven't
seen that among those who tend to be technically oriented. If anything, they
tend to go overboard on the rules.


I think 50 to 100 questions ought to
do it. Only the pool would need to
be several hundred questions, just as
today's pools are far larger than the
number of questions actually
occurring on any one exam.


I assume you want an equal number of questions for each exam. If so, you
still haven't answered the key point of my last message. The current exam
concept is basic exams for entry into each license class. Since you're
advocating much more extensive exams, are you saying the current concept
should be thrown away? If not, how do such large exams fit into the current
concept? None of the other FCC licenses, except those professionally
oriented, have such an extensive exam system. Are you advocating that we
turn the exams for the Amateur Radio service into something similar to the
exams for the professionally oriented licenses? If so, are you also
advocating that we change the concept behind our licenses, and, by
extension, the radio service, at the same time - in other words, the
elimination of "amateur" from the Amateur Radio service?


How many questions has she had to
pass to get her law degree and to
pass her bar exam?


It is patently absurd to compare the Amateur Radio license exams to the
final exams for a law degree or any other college degree. I was more than
generous when I compared them to the tests for a single college class. And,
as I said, my wife only had 50 questions on the tests to pass her
international law class.


On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules
questions. That means missing all 5
gives you a score of 30, which is passing.
This gives you room to miss several other
questions on the exam. (snip)


Again, do you have anything to suggest this (a person missing every
question on the rules, yet still passing the overall exam) has ever
happened, much less commonly so? If not, you're doing as some others have
done - offering a solution without evidence of a problem (in other words, an
answer seeking a question).


The current question pool however no
longer includes the data rates for digital.
This is quite important for legal operation
that does not exceed the bandwidths for
these modes. (snip)


Again, is there a widespread problem with this? I certainly haven't heard
any complaints in this regard.


Difference of opinion is fine but don't
assume that the FCC knows what they
are doing. Just because they've said it
doesn't make it true. They have a long
history of mistakes.


Speaking in general (not specifically to you, Dee - your comment just
offered an opportunity to spread this to a wider issue to more directly
address the subject line of this thread), the anti-FCC sentiment now
spreading in the Amateur Radio community bothers me greatly. This same
mentality started spreading in the CB community many years ago, with
disastrous long term results. The FCC isn't our enemy. Any ruling we
disagree with isn't necessarily a mistake and any mistakes they've made are
far outweighed by the good things they've done for us (like the continued
support for this radio service). In many ways, some in this service act like
a bunch of spoiled brats. We have more frequencies, and more privileges on
those frequencies, than just about any other non-government radio service.
But these spoiled brats will never be satisfied - endlessly demanding more
attention from the FCC over often trivial issues and then whining about how
horrible the FCC is when things don't go their way. This behavior is
extremely destructive, both for our relationship with the FCC and for the
spirit of this radio service. And that, in my opinion, is the main problem
with Ham radio today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Phil Kane" wrote:
Dee D. Flint wrote:

How many questions has she had to pass
to get her law degree and to pass her
bar exam?

Pending Dwight's reply, I can add from my
own experience. (snip)


Since a person still in college obviously hasn't yet got a law degree or
passed the later bar exam, I thought Dee's question was rhetorical.
Therefore, I didn't answer in that vein. However, before anyone takes it
seriously in regards to my wife, let me add that my wife isn't seeking a
degree in law. The international law class was just one class leading to a
degree in another subject.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

snip

PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position
would take the tests without at least reading Part 97.


Alun, not everyone is as conscientious as you are about having checked
out the rules. Of those hams that I personally know, only a small
percentage have a copy of the Part 97 rules and an even smaller
percentage bother to keep up with making sure it is current.

Also you didn't have to quote the ENTIRE discussion to make a reply. I
was beginning to wonder if you had written anything as I scrolled down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



My newsreader (XNews) has a 'skip quoted text' button. As a result I tend
not to snip much!

Alun

"Phil Kane" wrote in
et:

snip

Another radical idea: The (commercial) radiotelephone operator's
exam has two elements that all classes must pass: Element 1 dealing
with Rules and Regulations, and Element 2 dealing with operating
practices and procedures.

As this is a requirement even for a charter boat skipper operating
in tidal waters who isn't even allowed to do anything with the
transmitter except to operate the external channel and volume knobs,
I can see having a counterpart of perhaps another 50 questions in
the Amateur exam dealing with operating practices in all modes.

Like the Rules exam, pass it once, never have to pass it again
unless the license lapses beyond the grace period for renewal or the
licensee's conduct is found to be so egregious that a re-exam under
FCC supervision is necessary - "all or nothing".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



I don't think the FCC will ever again go for anything that increases the
total number of elements. However, if the licence structure were ever
rationalised to a two-tier system, then your idea might fit in. One rules
and regs test, and two theory tests, with the higher theory test giving
access to, say, 20m and the WARC bands, plus more power (1500W versus
200W).

50 seems to be a reasonable number for the average applicant. This
isn't, and shouldn't be, a Bar Exam because folks who pass the rules
exam are not expected to be qualified to do interpretation and
analysis to the level and precision that an attorney does.



As I stated here before, I would like to see the exams get expanded to
something similar as to what has been required in the fire service, at least
all of the ones I have taken. The least amount of questions was 150, and
the most questions was 250. AND THE QUESTION POOLS WERE NOT PUBLISHED.

Now, what is interesting, in the 2+ foot tall stack of books I had to use
for my Firefighter 1 and Firefighter 2 certifications had all of the
questions within the chapter tests, quizes, pre-tests etc. So, basically if
one did the homework like they were supposed to, then they have actually
seen the questions. I distinctly remember when I took my test, seeing the
same identical question on a piece of homework that was on the final exam,
many times. I actually like the way IFSTA organizes and sets up their
instruction books. Not only do you have a main book for the
instruction/reading, but workbooks to put the chapter's contents to
practical use.

I would definitely like to see all three tests (tech, general, extra) go up
to at least 100 questions each. And if the question pool is released, at
least only release the questions, and not the answers. At least then the
potential testee would have to look the material up. Hell, I would even
re-test if I had too under this type of test. In fact, if ham radio is
"sooo important" and "actually saves lives" I would think that retesting
every ten years would actually be a good thing. Not only would it show that
the licensee retained knowledge but might even show if he/she progressed at
all.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Yes they can be. I've known several.
They too often fall in the "know it all"
category.


That hasn't been my experience. First, I haven't seen that many rule
violations across the board. Most operators tend to stick to the rules, or
at least make a darn good effort to do so. But, second, I certainly
haven't
seen that among those who tend to be technically oriented. If anything,
they
tend to go overboard on the rules.


I've seen them have to learn the rules "the hard way" because they weren't
required to learn them for the test. Generally this has just been informal
warnings from other hams or warning notices from Official Observers. Good
intentions don't get anyone anywhere.


I think 50 to 100 questions ought to
do it. Only the pool would need to
be several hundred questions, just as
today's pools are far larger than the
number of questions actually
occurring on any one exam.


I assume you want an equal number of questions for each exam. If so, you
still haven't answered the key point of my last message. The current exam
concept is basic exams for entry into each license class. Since you're
advocating much more extensive exams, are you saying the current concept
should be thrown away?

Nope you assume wrong. I suggested simply adding a separate rules test,
perhaps taking the place of the code test by the way although I prefer a
code test stay. The remaining tests would stay the same except that the
rules questions in the current tests be replaced with other material. i.e.
The Tech test stays 35 questions but those 5 rules questions would be
replace by 5 other questions. I stated that in other posts and suggested
areas from which such material could be chosen. I was illustrating that
there is a wealth of material available.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I've seen them have to learn the rules
"the hard way" because they weren't
required to learn them for the test.
Generally... (snip)


Different experiences, I guess.


Nope you assume wrong. (snip)


Sorry for the wrong assumption. I'm still not convinced of a need to
change the license exams, but I'll let it go with what has already been
said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Should that not have been something that should have been done at least 10,
20 or even 30 years ago???


--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Why is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but
it takes a whole box to start a barbecue?"

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:38:08 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely
to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to
get
on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules.

I agree with you 150 %.

Let's have the present Element 1 replaced by this "rules" element -
it is more relevant to all amateurs on any band, any class, any mode.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
50 seems to be a reasonable number for the average applicant. This
isn't, and shouldn't be, a Bar Exam because folks who pass the rules
exam are not expected to be qualified to do interpretation and
analysis to the level and precision that an attorney does.




As I stated here before, I would like to see the exams get expanded to
something similar as to what has been required in the fire service, at least
all of the ones I have taken. The least amount of questions was 150, and
the most questions was 250. AND THE QUESTION POOLS WERE NOT PUBLISHED.

Before we go too far in this, I agree that it would be nice to get the
tests expanded.

Now to the rant!.....

So What, Ryan? If you are going to give a test, the answers have to be
somewhere. So what if they are in a book in text form? All that means is
that you read and memorize the book and not a question pool.

Or are you suggesting that the answers to the test questions be in NO
book at all? 8^)


Now, what is interesting, in the 2+ foot tall stack of books I had to use
for my Firefighter 1 and Firefighter 2 certifications had all of the
questions within the chapter tests, quizes, pre-tests etc.

Oops, I should have read a little further down!

So, basically if
one did the homework like they were supposed to, then they have actually
seen the questions. I distinctly remember when I took my test, seeing the
same identical question on a piece of homework that was on the final exam,
many times. I actually like the way IFSTA organizes and sets up their
instruction books. Not only do you have a main book for the
instruction/reading, but workbooks to put the chapter's contents to
practical use.

I doubt that having quizzes and pre-tests would go over very well for
the VE's! Although there are some classes where this happens, those are
all voluntary.

I would definitely like to see all three tests (tech, general, extra) go up
to at least 100 questions each. And if the question pool is released, at
least only release the questions, and not the answers. At least then the
potential testee would have to look the material up. Hell, I would even
re-test if I had too under this type of test.

What I did was indeed to look up any answers I missed. When I studied
for the General and Extra, I'd take one of the online tests, and for any
question I missed, I would go find out why the right answer was right.
THat was a lot easier than rote memorization, and less tricky, for at
least on the Extra test, the "pick a winner" letter was very often *not*
the letter in the question pool.

And when you get down to it, many of the questions are handled just
fine by a question pool setup. Regulations and bands are one part that
comes to mind.


In fact, if ham radio is
"sooo important" and "actually saves lives" I would think that retesting
every ten years would actually be a good thing. Not only would it show that
the licensee retained knowledge but might even show if he/she progressed at
all.

That would probably be a real disaster! What would they be tested for?
There are Hams that have been licensed for a long time, and are
operating comfortably within what they were tested for a long time ago.
Others keep up very well, but all are doing just fine.

"Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."

Everyone makes me happy; some when I see them come in the door, some
when I last see them go out....

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote:

Let's have the present Element 1
replaced by this "rules" element -
it is more relevant to all amateurs
on any band, any class, any mode.


Should that not have been something
that should have been done at least 10,
20 or even 30 years ago???


Or 40, 50, or even 60, years ago. Which makes one wonder why this, and
some of the other extended test ideas, are being advocated now. I cannot
help but suspect this is another example of the intolerance of newcomers by
some existing Hams (and also a way for some to build themselves up by
putting others down). Darn few of us knew everything when we started (I
still don't). Every single person in this newsgroup, every existing Ham, has
made mistakes (even those who started 40, 50, and even 60 years ago). Yet,
when a newcomer does the same today, it is not simply inexperience, but
instead malicious, or ignorance, or even the ruin of Amateur Radio. Some
point to it to show how much better they are than that. And calls for a
solution to this pending crisis are shouted from the rooftops. There is no
need for proof of a wider problem - a few isolated examples are always
enough for the intolerant. And, once ignited, intolerance fuels itself. I
truly hope I'm wrong about this, but that suspicion continues to grow.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Len,

Jim's point was well made. You appear to simply be trying to revive the
code/no code arguement. My belief is that if the FCC enforcement bureau had
not largely been disassembled, we wouldn't have the problems we do now. If
we were to dismantle the police department of NYC and the murder rate shot
through the roof, would you blame the drivers who insist everyone should
stop for a red light?

You are seeing the same situation everywhere in society today. Nothing
wrong with selling drugs to make some money, except, of course, for the
stupid drug laws.

'Cmon, now, you can do better that that!



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/04

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

Len,

Jim's point was well made.

No, it was not.

You appear to simply be trying to revive the code/no code arguement.

"Revive?!?"

Who said it "died?!?"

Destroying the code test requirement is a never-ending battle.

My belief is that if the FCC enforcement bureau had
not largely been disassembled, we wouldn't have the problems we do now.

?

Since WHEN was the FCC enforcement "stopped?"

FCC was very busy ENFORCING US civil radio ever since the end
of WW2. It's in the Reading Room at the FCC building if you care
to research it.

Your complaint should be rewritten to say the FCC "did not enforce
amateur radio ENOUGH"...to satisfy the purists and the prissy
olde-tymers who wanted to keep the standards and practices of the
1930s alive and well.

If
we were to dismantle the police department of NYC and the murder rate shot
through the roof, would you blame the drivers who insist everyone should
stop for a red light?

When in heck did the laws of New York City come under amateur radio
regulations?!?!?

You got a problem with NYC law, you take it to the NYC DA, okay?

You are seeing the same situation everywhere in society today.

Yeah...all those prim, proper, pejoartive-pushing anti-sex-term
purists babbling like eco-destroyed brooks about callsigns!

Ptui.

Nothing
wrong with selling drugs to make some money, except, of course, for the
stupid drug laws.

You had a bad toke or something?

This is NOT about "drugs" or "drug laws," Jim, nor is it about prim,
prissy, puritans forbidding sexist terms in callsigns. Geez!

'Cmon, now, you can do better that that!

When someone PAYS me for my words, you can damn well assume
the words WILL be better.

You sure as hell need to think some more about what YOU said.

WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

Every single one of them were superb, excellent students who
all passed. All smarter than Hiram and possessed of near
superhuman character and motivation, showing the ultimate
respect for the amateur community.
Late getting into high school? In Illinois we started at 12 or 13.

Spent a whole year studying for the amateur radio test, did
you? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Obviously due to character flaws, of not expressing enought
commitment to ham radio....all a result of lack of morse code
proficiency.

NO ONE was illegal over three decades ago...NO ONE.

It all happened NOW...and all due to low commitment and
dedication to the olde-tyme hammes and morse code.

Being a year late for high school might explain some of that.

Those things would NEVER happen in Pennsylvania, would they?

Reverend Jimmie sounds like working up to another...
Sermon On The Antenna Mount!

All that disrespect and lack of dedication to the amateur community
for not embracing the healing, curative powers of morsemanship!

Terrible, isn't it?

All those years...those wasted years...all the olde-tymers getting
older, grumping around, kvetching and belching about newcomers
not having any respect for the goode olde values of amateurism!

Nobody could do anything, could they? They all sat around and
kvetched and nobody reported anybody, demanding that the feds
should have been dedicated to their Cause and making the ham
world safe for their elitist democratic-socialism where all got one
vote...to cast as one...on one viewpoint.

You tellum, Jimmie.

WMD


Len, won't you tell us again about your purpose here? You know, the
thing about only being here for the civil debate of code test issue?
That's such a good tale.

Dave K8MN

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

I believe Jim N2EY and I have a similar viewpoint as to making
the written into two or more specific and separate elements for
each class. Where I would differ from your suggestion is that
it makes no difference which element(s) are passed first as long
as each stands on its own.

My idea was not to create separate elements but to change the marking system
slightly.

Each question in the pool would be classified by certain subjects - rules and
regs, safety, theory, etc. Probably only 4 subjects, not the 10 or so we had
before. Rules and regs are one obvious subject, safety another, operating
procedures, and theory. And each test would contain a certain number from each
subject.

The difference would be that in order to pass you'd need a certain number in
each subject correct, not just the total. So even though there might not be
that many safety questions on a test, you could not get them all wrong or most
of them wrong and still pass.

But it would only be one test and one element.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len, won't you tell us again about your purpose here? You know, the
thing about only being here for the civil debate of code test issue?
That's such a good tale.

Why?

YOUR whole purpose in here is to spit bile at those that don't
agree with your noble elitist thoughts.

You follow that course for more than 19 out of 20 postings.

You never want to discuss any subject matter unless it involves
tossing s**t on others.

Is that what U.S. amateur radio has evolved into today?

Certainly looks like it.

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len, won't you tell us again about your purpose here? You know, the
thing about only being here for the civil debate of code test issue?
That's such a good tale.

Why?

I already addressed the "why": ...because that's such a good tale.

YOUR whole purpose in here is to spit bile at those that don't
agree with your noble elitist thoughts.

That can only be guess work on your part. I've never stated a purpose
for being here. You have stated a specific purpose for being here but
can't be counted upon to do just about everything accept that which
you've stated.

You follow that course for more than 19 out of 20 postings.

....and you seem bent on outdoing me by a factor of 10 to 1.

You never want to discuss any subject matter unless it involves
tossing s**t on others.

Maybe your remarkable inferiority complex in just bubbling to the top,
kindly old gent. If you'd like, we can review some of your posts of the
past week, we can debate the matter of who tosses what.

Is that what U.S. amateur radio has evolved into today?

What's it to you, Len. You aren't involved in U.S or any other amateur
radio.

Certainly looks like it.

No, I don't think it looks like it, Len. This isn't amateur radio.
This is Usenet.


Dave K8MN

[This followup was posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy and a copy was
sent to the cited author.]

In article om,
says...
Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to get
on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules.

That's a reasonable proposal. Unfortunately, that means it will
probably never be given serious consideration.... ;-)

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:

PS: I'm not a cynic, but I play one on TV....

Steveo wrote:

Steveo wrote:

(WA8ULX) wrote:

Yup. Because you couldn't pass 20wpm, so you waited on your chalky
butt till the FCC gave you a "gimme!"


You know thats a LIE, I never wanted the Extra. But I guess I need to
explain to you again.
A Bunch of No-Code Knuckle Draggers bet me $250.00 I couldnt pass the
TEST. Well I not only passed with a score of 100%, with no study at
all, I got to collect $250.00 From the Knuckle Draggers.
As I remember you still are not able to pass it.


You swallow. Nuff said.


Well whenever someone say's nuff said, it usually not e-nuff.

Check out my sig file, you rotten *******. hehe

Don't bother with his sig file. Just get a look at his kids. That
tells the whole story.