KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written
examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of
those two exams.

The ARRL proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees.

I would suggest that "relevant" might be substituted for "harder",
Hans. While the giveaway goons whine about how hard the test is or
isn't, The fact is that the general test tests for knowledge that is
*relevant* to hf operation.

So in the great giveaway, people will be given access to HF without
some of the necessary knowledge.

Is that fair to them?


Fact: None of the tests are that hard. All it takes is some study.

Fact: the tests aren't necessarily supposed to be hard. They are to
show that a person is prepared to exercise the privileges gained by
passing the test.

Fact: the "one time adjustment" hams, now a majority of hams, will not
have been prepared properly for their HF access.

Opinion: It is one heck of a disservice we are doing for them.



They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!

I don't care about Ed's test.

This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

It's a heavy weight to bear.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

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 ...

Hey Carl. I don't call any of your ideas what you just called mine.
Fine gentleman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"William" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

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?


Brian,

Just as a matter of interest, the USSR (Socialist) had 4 classes
of license. Hmmmmm, maybe they weren't Socialist after all?

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Please quit quoting the Crockstar so profusely. It allows
him to evade my Bozo Bin when someone else quotes him.

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

Uh-huh.

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

You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?

And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.

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 ...

Which part?

there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...

Not directly.

However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.

You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.

It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.

How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.

Or better yet - how about this:

Enact a new 2 class license system.

Two license classes: Basic and Full.

Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.

Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.

Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.

Would that be a good system? Why or why not?

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 ...

Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.

I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...

Yet it was not proposed by NCI.

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.

Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

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

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

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

Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.

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

Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.

The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Robert Casey wrote in message ...

(I previously wrote):

Even a Tech license
that expired in 1956 is good for Element 1 and Element 3 credit.


Thought you would get lifetime credit for Element 1 only.

See below.

At 5WPM. If
you took and passed 13 or 20 and didn't do 5 I heard that you would not
get credit for Element 1.

That part is true - you have to have passed 5 wpm to get Element 1
credit.

Quoting Part 97:

§97.505 Element credit.

(a) The administering VEs must give credit as specified below to an
examinee
holding any of the following license grants or license documents:

(1) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Advanced Class operator license grant: Elements 1, 2, and
3.

(2) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted General Class operator license grant: Elements 1, 2, and
3.

(3) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Technician Plus Class operator (including a Technician
Class
operator license granted before February 14, 1991) license grant:
Elements 1
and 2.

(4) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Technician Class operator license grant: Element 2.

(5) An unexpired (or expired) FCC-granted Novice Class operator
license grant:
Element 1.

(6) A CSCE: Each element the CSCE indicates the examinee passed within
the
previous 365 days.

(7) An unexpired (or expired less than 5 years) FCC-issued commercial
radiotelegraph operator license or permit: Element 1.

(8) An expired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license document
granted
before March 21, 1987: Element 3.

(9) An expired or unexpired FCC-issued Technician Class operator
license
document granted before February 14, 1991: Element 1.

(b) No examination credit, except as herein provided, shall be allowed
on the
basis of holding or having held any other license grant or document.

(End of Part 97 quote)

Note that an old expired Tech can be good for Element and 3,
(97.505/8) and an old expired Novice or Tech can be good for Element
1. (97.505/9). So anyone who ever held a Tech before March 21, 1987
and can document it need only pass Element 2 to get a General.

Consider these scenarios:

Expired Novice or Tech-with-code licenses are good for Element 1, but
other
expired-beyond-the-grace-period licenses are not. So someone who held
a Novice
53 years ago and let it expire gets Element 1 credit, but someone who
held an
Extra and let it expire 732 days ago gets no credit. Similar for
Technician.

In similar fashion, an expired Tech from before March 21, 1987 is
worth Element
3, but not Element 2! Also, no other expired-beyond-the-grace-period
license is
worth written element credit.

But them's the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"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.


Uh-huh.

I always thought it was a good idea to arrange things so that you
didn't have to ever say "what I really meant was...."


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


You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?

And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.


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 ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?

And I wonder what 100 non-Hams would say about the situation. Not
people that stand to get the free "one time adjustment" or their leaders.

there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...


Not directly.

Not yet.

However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.

I still say we are ripping them off.


You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.

On average, most Generals will have been tested at the Technician
level. I'll entertain anyone's attempt to say that the average testing
level has not gone down.

It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.

How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.

Or better yet - how about this:

Enact a new 2 class license system.

Two license classes: Basic and Full.

Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.

Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.

Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.

Would that be a good system? Why or why not?


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 ...


Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.


snicker...


I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...


Yet it was not proposed by NCI.


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.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


Testing = knowledge = bad

Unfortunately, we seem headed that way


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


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?



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


Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.

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


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.

I do care about integrity.

I don't even care if people change their mind. I've done it in the
past, and if I was wrong, I said so, and if I just got more data, I said
that too.

But I don't care for spinning a story to make it seem as if a
contradiction was indeed, not a contradiction.

And they can say whatever disparaging comments about my argument that
they like. It only convinces me that I have hit a nerve.


ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.

The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?

Occam's razor says that ARRL sees that few Technicians belong to the
organization, so they rationalize that if we change that so that most
hams have HF access, more will join. Simplest answer, likeliest answer.

But we so seldom approach things directly.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...

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 ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?

No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]

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.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

[snip]

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."

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


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.

I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)

I do care about integrity.

Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...


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 ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?


No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]


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.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.


Many people's mileage varys on that ...


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.


Testing = knowledge = bad


No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad


Hold on Carl. You are putting Jim's and my posts together here. (at
least I think) I support Morse code testing. But if it goes away, I
doubt I'll miss a minute of sleep.

But I don't think that the tested requirements for General are
irrelevant or unnecessary, etc. I think you were talking about element
one instead of the writtens?


[snip]


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?


Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...


You're still replying to Jim here. I gave up on the hypothetical
questions a little while ago.

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."


I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be

allowed

to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.


Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I support a system that is basically like what we have now. Only
difference is that Morse code is not tested for AT ALL. I would think
NCI would prefer a system like that instead of one in which there is
still a test for Extra. No one loses *anything at all*. No one gains.
And if the Technicians want to upgrade to General, they will now have
the ability to take the General test without Element one.

Now this does not address the problem of the different classes. I could
be convinced that that there is the need to change the classes. I would
ask for some solid evidence of the difficulties that people are going
through with the present system. But I really don't think that people
are having such difficulties.

I keep a database that has numbers assigned to parts that are 50 years
old. Those numbers aren't used any more, and in fact are assigned new
names. But the old names are still there. It isn't a problem at all, and
in fact would be more trouble to change than it is to just let it alone.


I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.


I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)


Of course not!

I do care about integrity.


Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
Oops. You've strayed.

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

I could say that it hasn't since you passed your Advanced exam, but I won't.

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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...?!?!

Above and below.

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

OK, you've pigeon-holed it as Socialism.

Again I ask you, Socialist or Marxist?

Since you've already pigeon-holed my idea as Socialist, why do you ask
such a stupid question?

Because you're not happy enough to call me a Socialist, you've got to
call me a Marxist, too!

Did I say that you tend toward extremes?

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

Let me 'splain it to you Steve.

In Socialism, there are two license classes. A class for the masses,
and a class for the governmental elitists.

In Marxism, there is one license class. A class for the governmental
elitists.