In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

I've been licensed for well over 25 years.

I've been licensed for well over 36 years.

The ham bands have *not*
"become sounding like CB over the last 17 years" -

Not the CW/digital subbands, anyway. The 'phone bands are another story...

there have always
been a few bad apples - MANY of them OTs who passed the 20 wpm
Morse test and believe they are some sort of gods.

SOME of them, anyway.

But ALL of them passed the written tests, too.

Yes, new hams may make some operating errors and they may need
a little coaching and immersion in the "culture" of ham radio to get to
the point where they sound experienced. We ALL made such mistakes

I didn't.

when we first got on the air - learning by doing is the best way to learn.

Not for everything.

I was unhappy with the ARRL's policy on Morse testing for a long time,
and I'm still not happy with the aspect of their new proposal that would
keep Morse testing for Extra. (Though I have nothing to gain personally,
since I'm already an Extra.)

Nor do I...

HOWEVER, the ARRL does SO much good for ham radio that I finally
decided to take out a life membership - BEFORE their proposal came
out (not knowing what position they'd take on the code test).

If all the OT's bail out on the ARRL over this, they will be cutting off
their noses to spite their face.

Agree 100%!

I encourage everyone to maintain their ARRL membership. And, I
encourage those who aren't members to join. The best way to influence
the ARRL in a progressive direction is from the inside - join, then talk to
your ARRL Director, make your views known, and let him/her know that
your vote in the next ARRL Director election in your division depends on
their performance.

Exactly.

So tell us what you think of the ARRL proposal, Carl. We already know about the
code test, so let's just skip that part.

What do you think of:

1) the "NewNovice" idea? (easy entry-level exam, limited power, more HF modes
and spectrum, less VHF/UHF)

2) closing Tech to new issues?

3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General?

4) free upgrades for Advanceds to Extra?

5) widening of some of the 'phone image subbands?


I say 1) and 2) are good ideas. The rest are bad ideas.

What say you?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yes, new hams may make some operating errors and they may need
a little coaching and immersion in the "culture" of ham radio to get to
the point where they sound experienced. We ALL made such mistakes



I didn't.

Sure.... Even the best operators made errors when they first got on.
I don't mean malicious intent errors, but the traditional way of IDing and
such. "N2EY, WA2ISE and the group, 73s."

Also things like not tying up a contest op to get his call right as I
can listen
to subsequent other contacts to get his call right.




when we first got on the air - learning by doing is the best way to learn.



Not for everything.

Well , this ain't rocket science, and botching the first few contacts
doesn't create
a hazardous condition. Not like learning to fly 747s.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Yes, new hams may make some operating errors and they may need
a little coaching and immersion in the "culture" of ham radio to get to
the point where they sound experienced. We ALL made such mistakes



I didn't.

Sure....

That's right.

Even the best operators made errors when they first got on.

How do you know?

I don't mean malicious intent errors, but the traditional way of IDing and
such. "N2EY, WA2ISE and the group, 73s."

Was that meant to be an example of how I would operate? Never happened. One of
the first operating rules I learned was that the transmitting station gives
his/her own call last. Learned that long before I was a ham.

What you will hear from me would be

"WA2ISE and the group, this is N2EY"

although usually on sign-off I'll give the call of everyone in the group.

Also things like not tying up a contest op to get his call right as I
can listen to subsequent other contacts to get his call right.

That's sloppy operating. Suppose the station you just work QSYs or experiences
equipment failure right after your QSO? Then he thinks he worked you and knows
your call, but you don't know his, and so didn't work him. And if the
logcheckers catch it, you can cost him a QSO and maybe even a multiplier.

The time to get the info of a contest station who's running them is during the
QSO or *before*.

when we first got on the air - learning by doing is the best way to learn.
Not for everything.

Well , this ain't rocket science, and botching the first few contacts
doesn't create a hazardous condition. Not like learning to fly 747s.

The problem is that too many folks want to just wing it rather than taking
a little time to learn the right way. Or worse, they think it doesn't matter
what the right way is.

73 de Jim, N2EY

extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint:
Has nothing to do with aviation.

On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint:
Has nothing to do with aviation.

From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors
who received prompts from the wings.

73, leo

In article , Leo
writes:

On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint:
Has nothing to do with aviation.

From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors
who received prompts from the wings.

BINGO!

Hey, this guy's good!

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 27 Jan 2004 00:29:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint:
Has nothing to do with aviation.

From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors
who received prompts from the wings.

BINGO!

Hey, this guy's good!

Well, sometimes

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 27 Jan 2004 00:29:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint:
Has nothing to do with aviation.

From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors
who received prompts from the wings.

BINGO!

Hey, this guy's good!

Well, sometimes

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo


Len, another extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing nut" come from?

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

The ham bands have *not*
"become sounding like CB over the last 17 years" -

Not the CW/digital subbands, anyway. The 'phone bands are another story...

I haven't seen it ... and you know I don't choose to operate CW.
YMMV ... but I doubt it's the broad reality.

there have always
been a few bad apples - MANY of them OTs who passed the 20 wpm
Morse test and believe they are some sort of gods.

SOME of them, anyway.

But ALL of them passed the written tests, too.

So? I think it's a given that NO test filters out lids ... no way to fix
that.
Bad behavior is an enforcement issue, not something that can be dealt
with "up front" through licensing requirements.

[snip]

So tell us what you think of the ARRL proposal, Carl. We already know
about the
code test, so let's just skip that part.

OK, we agree that NCI will not support keeping Morse tests for ANY class of
license.

What do you think of:

My *personal* views, NOT necessarily "NCI policy" ...

1) the "NewNovice" idea? (easy entry-level exam, limited power, more HF
modes
and spectrum, less VHF/UHF)

Good idea ... we need to give newcomers a better taste of all of ham radio.
Power
restrictions make sense, and I don't see a big enforcement issue - the
Novice
license had power restrictions and I don't believe that ever presented a
real problem.

2) closing Tech to new issues?

OK by me, given a more sensible beginner class license as proposed.

3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General?

I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
written
element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent
*personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that
they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.

4) free upgrades for Advanceds to Extra?

As #3 above ... Ed's argument are pretty persuasive if you think them
through with an open mind. The tests between Tech/General and
Advanced/Extra are *really* not ALL that different ...

5) widening of some of the 'phone image subbands?

While I've stated many times that I would not support wholesale
proliferation of SSB/SSTV to the detriment of CW/digital modes,
the "refarming" of the (largely unused) "Novice bands" as proposed,
is modest and I can tolerate it ... if it doesn't happen, the proposal
can be tweaked a bit to allow for the increased access to HF for
the "new Novices".

I say 1) and 2) are good ideas. The rest are bad ideas.

What say you?

As I said above. Note again, these are my *personal* views after
considering Ed's excellent and persuasive explaination of why he
supports the proposal (of course, Ed knows that I will NOT support
keeping code testing for Extra).

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| 3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General?
|
| I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
| written element should be a requirement. However, I've read
| Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments
| on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a
| compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
| make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.

I haven't seen Ed Hare's argument, so I can't comment on it. If the
"adjustment" were some minor clean-up to sweep up the remnants of a long
abandoned legacy class and the number of licenses involved was trivial
(under 10,000), then I'd have no problem with it.

But we aren't dealing with some trival number, we are dealing with
almost 2/3rds of existing licensees.

The message ARRL sends with this proposal is "our General (and Extra)
qualifications" are more strenuous than need be. Such a free-pass would
establish that all these hundreds of thousands of licensees have been
qualified for General (or Extra) all along. At that moment it is
established, ipso facto, that the current Technician examination is
sufficient for the 'new General' and that the last Advanced examination
is sufficient for the 'new Extra'.

Up until now I have never raised the cry of "dumbing down", but such a
mass give-away would set a new lower bar for all future qualification
levels in the Amateur Radio service, and your position allegedly in
support of strenuous technical qualification standards rings hollow
indeed.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
| written element should be a requirement. However, I've read
| Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments
| on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a
| compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
| make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.


I missed this, but as usual Mr CBplusser himself backs down. How many times
has Karl stated that he would fight to the end if what is about to happens.