"KØHB" wrote in news:fZEPb.22599$zj7.10801
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Alun" wrote

From K0HB:

The governing regulation is §97.527 which allows, but does NOT
require,
VEC's to collect reimbursement for examinations. (In other words,
there
is no requirement that VEC's collect money for ANY examination.)
Collection of reimbursement is AUTHORIZED but it is not MANDATORY.

I don't think that qualifies as proof.

Since it is a citation of the actual federal rules, it is certainly more
convincing than your tenuous assertion that you "read somewhere".....

73, de Hans, K0HB











That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the
rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing.

Alun wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in news:fZEPb.22599$zj7.10801
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Alun" wrote

From K0HB:

The governing regulation is §97.527 which allows, but does NOT
require,
VEC's to collect reimbursement for examinations. (In other words,
there
is no requirement that VEC's collect money for ANY examination.)
Collection of reimbursement is AUTHORIZED but it is not MANDATORY.

I don't think that qualifies as proof.

Since it is a citation of the actual federal rules, it is certainly more
convincing than your tenuous assertion that you "read somewhere".....

That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the
rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing.

So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof that
the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up?

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote


| That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute,
not the
| rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing.
|
| So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof
that
| the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up?

It's clear he doesn't wish to be confused with any facts which spoil his
rant.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Alun wrote


That's the problem though, isn't it?


It's not a problem for me.

What we need is the statute, not the
rules, which prove nothing in the absence
of Novice testing.

The rule cited shows that there is not a requirement to charge a fee
for any license examination of any class.

If you think otherwise, then I guess the burden of proof lies with
you, not with me. I've made my case by citing the governing
regulation.

Good luck on this one now!

73, de Hans, K0HB