Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? 'tisn't, Jim. 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's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. On the contrary, I believe that they DO support permanent reductions of the written requirements. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? 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. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. ahem.... 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. True. But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? 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. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large Whhhoooaaaahhhh! And there my friend is the first shot in the next volley that will attempt to permanently reduce the written requirements! "The difference betweent the Tech and General written tests is not that large". How about that? Lessee.... 1. we don't support reductions in the test requirements 2. we support a one shot upgrade 3. the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large snip a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications. The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............ - Mike KB3EIA - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|