"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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?

Why would they be "unqualified?"

Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam
which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific
class of license.

Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has
NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything
specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges.

Let's be serious here!

It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our
lanyards.

Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose
it. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours. If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.

In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.

Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's
a--well, you know the drill.

Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement.

I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm
betting that the answer is "none".

Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what
makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners?

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?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class
license. No ifs, ands or buts.

Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would
be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test.

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?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the
General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is
something you stated that you'd never support.

If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition.
In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented
as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements
for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and
understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there
will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra
and General.

Clear enough for you?

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?

Broken record here it seems.

The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been
forthcoming.

The question keeps coming up because some people can't
understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as
opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements.

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.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the
elimination of incentive licensing.

I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements.
I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional
privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being
tested for.

There can be no other explanation.

I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of
privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that
I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore,
oppose incentive licensing.

If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but
to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and
say so.

Because it isn't true!

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.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by
granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a
one-time basis, it can be done permanently.

Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have
stated I support? Answer - NO!

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll
just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances.

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech
to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of
thousands.
Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary
to do.

Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their
logic. No need to repeat it again.

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.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you
are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your
earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound
disingenuous.

What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference
between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes
you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl
and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free
to enjoy your own beliefs.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your
comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs.

Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK