| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#9
January 28th 04, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote in message . com... (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com... There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal. Also a lot of positivism. That they are trying to keep things moving from their perspective, perhaps. But I don't think this requires a whole lot of rethinking nor does it require any complex bandplanning. While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the sake of sales/membership. I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas. There's good stuff here, Jim, but I'm going to cut to the chase. On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff that would serve a newcomer better. I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide", the tests are relatively irrelevant. Passing the General written in 1958 was not difficult at all for anyone with a memory and who spent limited time studying the AMECO study guide or ARRL study guide which only had some 5/6 pages of study material for General. Yes, some "learning" will occur just from reading the question over and over, but to what legitimate application can THAT kind of learning be applied? The Q&As aren't going away. Better to focus effort on expanding the Q&A pool for things like formiula calculations such that memorizing the formula...not the answer is the better way to learn. My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM. What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why. Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one to open the flood gates of new licensees. I don't think the FCC cares if there is or isn't a floodgate of new hams. The FCC wants stability over the next decade or longer. The ARRL proposal would do exactly that...once and for a long time forward. Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate. If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time...... Ditto. Me too. Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling breeze pass through the house. Six more inches of snow last night....ugh. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Threaded Mode
