LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old February 14th 04, 05:36 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message


Do you support those free upgrades or not?



I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.


Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?


If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.



Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.


Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?



Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but


it's

still a reduction.



It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.



Are the people qualified?

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.



If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because
no one losses any privileges.


Are they qualified?


A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. I
refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will
go up.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.



 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine Dx 36 September 9th 04 09:30 AM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine General 8 September 8th 04 12:14 PM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine Dx 0 September 5th 04 08:30 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1412 ­ September 3, 2004 Radionews General 0 September 4th 04 08:35 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1412 ­ September 3, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 September 4th 04 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017