Oops. You've strayed.

Why, why even have a TEST? The test doesnt prove anything anymore.

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/25/2004 4:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S.
licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Sorry Bert, whereas NCI can look only to its membership
for guidance as to NCI's organizational stance, the FCC can
not simply look ONLY towards the already licensed
amateur community for its input and guidance. In fact,
I know of NO entity that claims total representation
of ONLY the existing licensed body of hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Guess you missed it, again..."AND those who are interested in becoming a
licensed U.S. AR."

It would not even be limited to existing and interested. FCC rules
can be and should be subject to review and comment by anyone,
interested or not.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:

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

Once again, it would be irresponsible for the NCI Board of Directors to
ignore the wishes of the vast majority of our membership in favor of
honoring Hans' wishes - though we certainly did listen to and consider
his
views, and some of the NCI Directors even had lengthily e-mail
discussions
with him.


Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

I've tried that already, Jim. They don't like thought experiments very
much!

Especially one as silly as that just suggested by Jim.
Me thinks Jim has too much idle time on his hands :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/26/2004 5:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/25/2004 4:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

There you go with your extremism again.

What extremism...?!?!

Your suggestion of "one license fits all" is the very epitome of
socialism, Brian.

Again I ask you, Socialist or Marxist?

The withering of the soul due to the numbinginly cold and apathetic "one
size fits all" socialist state was at the very heart of the fall of the Soviet
Union, Brian...or weren't you paying attention to social issues in the
80's...?!?!

Sheeesh...

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/26/2004 5:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/25/2004 4:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

There you go with your extremism again.


And the question remains...Socialist or Marxist? You must be one or the
other in order to hold such concepts.

Steve, K4YZ

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:

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

Once again, it would be irresponsible for the NCI Board of Directors to
ignore the wishes of the vast majority of our membership in favor of
honoring Hans' wishes - though we certainly did listen to and consider
his
views, and some of the NCI Directors even had lengthily e-mail
discussions
with him.


Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

I've tried that already, Jim. They don't like thought experiments very
much!

Especially one as silly as that just suggested by Jim.

It is interesting that NCI folks avoid such a simple, direct question.

Me thinks Jim has too much idle time on his hands :-)

It took only a few seconds to write that post. Far more has been spent
by NCI folks trying to justify their support of free upgrades for
Techs after at least one said they would *never* support reductions in
the written requirements.

Hans, K0HB has described the situation plainly and clearly.

As for my thought-experiment being "silly" - that's exactly what many
of us were told about possible reductions in written test standards.

Here's another thought-experiment:

Suppose that, in order to break the logjam, someone proposes that the
lower 15-20% of each MF/HF ham band be made manual-CW-only. And a 5
wpm code test would be required to use those segments.

And suppose the majority of NCI members said "Fine! The code folks
will have their protected spots and the rest of us won't have to deal
with code unless we want to, and we can disband NCI and move on."

What would NCI's leadership do?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.


But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element
1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses
the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly
when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.

We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.

Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ... there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ... the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ... I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.

We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.

Carl - wk3c