"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Richard L. Tannehill wrote:

Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?


Yet on the point of Tech and Advanced upgrades, ARRL and NCVEC are
identical. It is the incidentals that differentiate the two.


The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
General.

Wow, quite the spin. If a person wants to have General privileges right
now, do you suggest that they take the Technician test and wait for the
"adjustment"?

A one time adjustment.

Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen,

On what do you make that wild statemnent. Exactly where is
there any proposal to end all General testing?

it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.

And that leads to what problems?

You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?

Like ARRL, we are, however, a member organization and what
we end up doing is and will be member based.

Can I join your organization to influence your member base opinion?

Anyone can join as long as you agree to the basics of being
an NCI member.

And be that such as it may, it is now evident that an apparent majority
of NCI members support the majority of hams to be at least at the
General level without being tested for it. That cannot be denied.

Imprecise statement. The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
upgrade.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news |
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


William wrote:


We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.


Nevertheless, it is a change driven by membership, not Board
of Director fiat.

Better get on that constitution, pronto!


Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.

Whatever the "official" NCI position will be,
it will not be "private" opinion.

+ 50 cents and I'll have a down paymenty on a cup of coffee.


In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.


You are free to bust a gut or whatever...but the reality still is
that a "one-time' upgrade is NOT an overall or permant
licensing requirement change.

Your reality is much different than mine.


You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.


And just what will that end up meaning to the future?

Nothing stands still, Bill. The idea of the technically adroit Amateur
radio crowd has been taking a beating lately, and the winners are pretty
full of themselves at the moment. We've gone from "simply" eliminating
the Morse code test to giving the majority of hams an untested-for
upgrade. This is plenty uncomfortable for people like me, that happen to
like the lost idea of technically savvy hams.


You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.


Such is life.

Not for me it isn't. Is this an admission that you have reconciled the
non-tested upgrade via the suspension of disbelief route?

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.


Your inability to understand the difference between a "one-time"
upgrade and a permanent change can also be considered obtuse.

Perhaps. I can respect the idea that an adjustment might be warranted
by circumstances. I can respect the idea that the General test is too
hard. (note that I would disagree) But the idea that it is not a free
upgrade for most hams and that since it is a supposed "one time" thing,
it *isn't* a lowering of standards is doublethink.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
| upgrade.

That's probably not a remarkable revelation, given that the overwhelming
majority of the NCI members are Technicians who would naturally benefit
from such action.

The REAL question isn't what the NCI membership supports, but rather....


Q: Will the NCI Board of Directors recommend
upgrading all Tech/Tech+ licensees to General
without further testing?

A: (please select one and only one answer)
___ Yes
___ No
___ The Board will take no position on this matter

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Bill Sohl wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| General.

The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055 of
them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing be
eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.


That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
your mind.


Bill, I'll be waiting in a couple years when you explain why the
permanent changing of the testing requirements is not a permanent
changing of the test requirements.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!

Cheers,
de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

KØHB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news |
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You have it correct, Hans. But I'm afraid that isn't what they are all
about.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Richard L. Tannehill wrote:


Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?


Yet on the point of Tech and Advanced upgrades, ARRL and NCVEC are
identical. It is the incidentals that differentiate the two.



The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
General.

Wow, quite the spin. If a person wants to have General privileges right
now, do you suggest that they take the Technician test and wait for the
"adjustment"?


A one time adjustment.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that Bill.


Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen,


On what do you make that wild statemnent. Exactly where is
there any proposal to end all General testing?

Where was the proposal to give all technicians the presumed one time
upgrade? Doesn't take long for things to happen.


it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.


And that leads to what problems?

It most certainly leads to problems the day after the presumed one-time
upgrade.

You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?

Like ARRL, we are, however, a member organization and what
we end up doing is and will be member based.

Can I join your organization to influence your member base opinion?


Anyone can join as long as you agree to the basics of being
an NCI member.

What If I want elimination of Morse code, but am adamantly opposed to
the ARRL or NCVEC proposals?


And be that such as it may, it is now evident that an apparent majority
of NCI members support the majority of hams to be at least at the
General level without being tested for it. That cannot be denied.


Imprecise statement. The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
upgrade.


And once upon a time, they were simply for the elimination of the code
test.

And you, kind sir, know exactly what an imprecise statement is. Dontchya?


- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy


But whatever you do, don't quit.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| What If I want elimination of Morse code, but am adamantly opposed to
| the ARRL or NCVEC proposals?
|

I don't think that's a problem. I've been openly critical of both the
ARRL and NCVEC proposals, both in public forums like this one, and in
email and telephone exchanges. I think a couple of the Directors are
sick of my lobbying, but they're not retiring my membership number.

73, Hans, K0HB