Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
What's All Dose Numbers Hams Use | Dx |