Subject: Dee's comments on Novice vs. Tech
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 3/27/2004 6:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"William" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental
waste of time learning the Morse Code and become.

Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired.

Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions. I work a full
time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time. I found
learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory. They
both take time and both are worthwhile.

It's no more a "monumental waste of time" than learning another language,
Dee...yet the same "arguments" against learning another language are employed
by those who just don't want to leanr Morse Code.

It'a actually easier to do, but then hey, they don'[t want to hear THAT,
either...

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather
than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool,
that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement
that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide
by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool
can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the
NCVEC plan
for a number of reasons.

Carl - wk3c

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Even with an Element 1 test, there would probably be a lot more novices
if there had been VHF access. Conjecture of course.

I dunno, Mike...

Novices were given 220MHz priviledges along with some (dubiously)
adequate
10 meter phone priviledges and it sputtered to a halt almost as quickly as it
started.

The problem was that 220 isn't 2 meters.

Way back in the bad old days, Novices had 145-147 MHz privs. But they were
phased out in the late '60s early '70s, just as amateur repeaters became very
common.

I was in SoCal when "Novice Enhancement" took effect, and one can hardly
argue that there is a dearth of repeaters on that band in that region...even
that, very little additional activity was heard. I think I worked a half
dozen Novices on 220 in the year after it was implemented.

That's because "everybody" was on 2 meters. Or 440.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of the
study guides.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather
than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool,
that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement
that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide
by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool
can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl.

What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed
statement" bad idea, and the "no homebrew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the
"additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data"
bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a
proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5
wpm for Extra thing)/

Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually
insult beginners.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands are
for HF if I was asked.


But as an Extra, you don't *need* to know that, Bill! You just need to


know the


band and mode subband limits..



As above, have you memorized them all?

Well, extras can use any ham frequency. But you still need to know what
modes go in what subbands.




Better to know the person can read
and use the frequency chart because it does change over time.


See above.



We disagreee then on that.



I use a chart when using an unfamiliar band. The concept that you can
operate
whatever mode you happen to hear on whatever frequency doesn't always
work. Like on 80 and 40.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...

I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands
are for HF if I was asked.

But as an Extra, you don't *need* to know that, Bill!
You just need to know the
band and mode subband limits.

As above, have you memorized them all?

Well, extras can use any ham frequency.
But you still need to know what
modes go in what subbands.

Exactly my point.

Better to know the person can read
and use the frequency chart because
it does change over time.

See above.

We disagreee then on that.

I use a chart when using an unfamiliar band.

As do I. Additionally, as we have all seen too,
band edges for modes of operation can and do
change. Memorized spectrum or band edges
by mode today may not be accurate tomorrow.

The concept that you can operate
whatever mode you happen to hear on
whatever frequency doesn't always
work. Like on 80 and 40.

Agree 100%.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

So did the Q&A book folks.

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the study guides.

The Church of St. Hiram is sacrosanct, can do no wrong.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain
how the material was obtained.

So did the Q&A book folks.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

Poor baby. You are mad as heck and you can't stand it anymore!

Take Bash to civil court then, nothing stopping you from trying.

Avenge all foes! Sound the hue and cry!! Love the ARRL!!!

That done, maybe you can fight against "J. K. Lasser's Your Income
Tax" annual publications.

I really think you ought to review Title 17, USC, Copyrights. If you
do, you will find that the United States government cannot
copyright its own works. That's been in the United States Code
for quite a while. The ARRL did not need to "seek any permission"
for republishing any FCC public material. They still don't need to,
just repro it and mention the source. No fees, nothing. Anyone
can.

There's a legal area that is a "grey area" for many on what
constitutes "ownership" of test materials. I'll leave that up to
attorneys and judges to thrash out...not to omniscient wanna-
be gurus who spout off on everything because they have an Extra
license and are good at morse code. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

Right. You are already an Extra and none of your amateur privileges
will be changed by any of the 4 new proposals. Not to worry.

But, only the NCVEC petition calls for total elimination of the morse
code test. How does that square with the NCI position on code?

LHA / WMD

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical

In your opinion, anyway.

and arguably illegal at the time.

a legal argument in academic concept only. Since the FCC
never tested the legality, the legal issue is moot.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

Ditto my last.

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Not at all. Itwould be the equivalent of a techer using the SAME
test questions over and over again and in recognition of same, a
frat house eventually compiles a list of those questions based on the
memory of those frats that had taken the tests before. Nothing
about what bash did is equivalent to sneaking into the teacher's
office.

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that
would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with
FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the
study guides.

In the end it made no difference.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods,

And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the
means being legal or not.

and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK