|
OK...So What Are YOU Going To DO About It...?!?!
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.
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. 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. Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual "I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being bantied about? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om... There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal. 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. 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. Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual "I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being bantied about? 73 Steve, K4YZ You know the group so well, Steve! ;) 73/88, Kim W5TIT |
|
Well you people have done such a fantastic job of destroying the hobby, I
say it's time to fire up NTI (No Test International) and just finish it off. Face it, you people killed Ham Radio, it's over. Ham Radio, RIP "Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message om... There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal. 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. 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. Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual "I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being bantied about? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"shephed" wrote in message ...
Well you people have...(SNIP) Another anonymous sniper with more antagonistic, slanderous swill to yet slop the trough with. Be gone, Scumbag. We already have Lennie...We DON'T need you. Steve, K4YZ |
(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. 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? Repeat after me: "Lopressor is a beta blocker administerd SIVP for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR." Got that? Now, WHAT is a beta blocker? What was the underlying etiology of the hypertension or the atrial fibrillation that produced the irregular ventricular response? 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. 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. 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. 73 Steve, K4YZ 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (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. I'm not sure what you mean, Steve. The ARRL proposal focuses mostly on the entry-level license and the license classes closed off to new issues. There's not a lot of bandplanning in it. 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. OK 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. And that's not going to change. Been that way for 20 years, and FCC isn't going to take back the work that it now gets done for free by unpaid volunteers. So the *only* answer is to make the test pools so big that it's easier for 99% of new hams to just learn the material than to word-associate and rote-memorize their way to a passing grade. And, in my experience, most newcomers really want to learn the material. YMMV. 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? Some questions are pure memorization, like the band edges and other regs. Repeat after me: "Lopressor is a beta blocker administerd SIVP for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR." "Lopressor is a beta blocker administered SIVP for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR." Got it - sort of. Got that? Now, WHAT is a beta blocker? Some kind of drug. Has to do with the mechanisms that cause high blood pressure and /or hear attacks. Administered intravenously. What was the underlying etiology of the hypertension or the atrial fibrillation that produced the irregular ventricular response? Something to do with too much beta. Whatever beta is in this context. I figured out all that from context and a hazy layman's exposure to cardiac medicine. Do I really understand it? Of course not! 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 see that. What I do see is the FCC taking its time and letting everyone propose all sorts of stuff, and comment on same. NPRM? Maybe some months down the road. Actual rules changes? Don't hold your breath or you'll need more than beta blockers ;-) Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate. That's because none of them address, or can address, the underlying problems that limit growth in amateur radio. If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time...... Ditto. 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. We've had 3 winter storms in the past 4 days. Last night was an ice storm followed by several inches of new snow. Also lots of flu in this house despite flu shots. Not pretty. See what you're missing? Time to dig out. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com