"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a
means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio.

I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter".

I define it to be someone who operates poorly or
illegally on a deliberate basis (emphasis on deliberate).

If it means that some sort of test is supposed to guarantee that everyone
who
passes it will somehow be a fully qualified, skilled, courteous,
law-abiding
radio amateur who will advance the state of the art, then there is no such
test
and no test was ever intended to do that job.

Agreed.

But if it means that the test will help to insure that those who pass it
have
at least some minimum level of qualifications (knowledge and skill) to be
hams....

Which is the only purpose for the testing today and in
the past.

It all boils down to what constitutes
"basic knowledge to allow people into
[amateur] radio". For some that includes
a basic test of Morse code skill, for
some others it does not.

Correct, and the FCC has been pretty clear on the
point that morse as a skill is NOT needed, except to
be compliant with the now vacated treaty code
requireent for HF.

For some it includes technical and regulatory
knowledge and for others it does not.

I am one that agrees there should be both technical
and regulatory knowledge.

Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

Agreed - all the way back into the 1930s, when the Class A license was
invented. Or even earlier, if we count the old Amateur Extra First Class
license.

No argument on that. It is clearly
the intent of incentive licensing.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material
tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges
not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should
have
but don't want to learn.

That's an excellent point, Dee. But it's exactly what some people call
"jumping
through hoops", "hazing rituals", "giving out gold stars" and such.

BUT code testing is a motor skills test, not a technical
nor regulatory one. No other mode is tested at the
use level as is morse code.

Now we see the same arguments that were used against the code test being
used
against the written test in the NCVEC proposal. How do we argue against
it?

You just do on the belief the FCC won't buy the NCVEC
proposal on that point.

Unless I am mistaken, at least one of the folks behind the NCVEC petition
was/is on the NoCode International board. And the whole thing was clearly
laid
out in the "21st Century" paper.

Fred W5YI is both NCVEC and an NCI Board Member.

For the record, I am also an NCI Bd member and I individually
oppose the NCVEC RM except as to it calling for a total
end to all code testing. On the NCVEC petition itself,
NCI, as an organization, has not taken any official
stand for or against.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK