"Mike Coslo" wrote

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

I don't identify with "majority" or "minority" --- those are
popularity polls. I identify with what I believe in, and my beliefs are
not modified by whether they are widely popular or not.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/19/2004 9:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: et


"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!

And sometimes being "the squeakyky wheel" just means you get replaced.

And Democracy is a fine thing...even for the functionally illiterate or
profane.

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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

The NCI board decision has been made yet.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

The truth is the truth.

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.

Yet you can point to nothing that has been filed that supports
your claim.

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.

Yet you still fail to articulate even ONE problem that you
can think of.

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?

NCI isn't in favor of elinating morse code...morse code
testing, yes.
Assuming you meant that you want morse testing ended, but
don't faorv support of the ARRL or NCVEC petitions...
well I see nothing in that stance that would serve to disallow
you from joining NCI. As an example, I think it is safe to
say that is exactly Hans's position.

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.

That can't be stated with any accuracy as we never had
any indication of how members felt about anything beyond
the code test.

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

I know accuracy when I see and when I don't.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

Good! Then, regardless of the overwhelming support of NCI members for
the ARRL "Great Giveaway", I can continue to lobby you and the other
directors to have the courage to do the right thing and make a strong
case against instant upgrades for 60+% of all licensed amateurs.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

I just read that statement again. It is gobbledygook. Would you wish to
clarify it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

I just read that statement again. It is gobbledygook. Would you wish to
clarify it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Should read:
....has NOT been made yet

Bill

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

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.

The truth is the truth.




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.


Yet you can point to nothing that has been filed that supports
your claim.

And here we have it. You make the statement that nothing has been
filed. Lets look at this. We have two proposals that have been filed.
They have not been accepted. Of course nothing has been filed on this!


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.

Yet you still fail to articulate even ONE problem that you
can think of.

Google me, Bill (not too hard tho' I'm ticklish! ;^) )

I've articulated problems, plenty times, here and to the ARRL.


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?


NCI isn't in favor of elinating morse code...morse code
testing, yes.

Sorry, I didn't put the "test" in the sentence. I know that as of this
moment, they claim no interest in eliminating Morse code.

That could change tho'. I'm not arguing that point, although it would
be interested if your membership expressed interest in that.

Assuming you meant that you want morse testing ended, but
don't faorv support of the ARRL or NCVEC petitions...

Yeah, like that...


well I see nothing in that stance that would serve to disallow
you from joining NCI. As an example, I think it is safe to
say that is exactly Hans's position.


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.


That can't be stated with any accuracy as we never had
any indication of how members felt about anything beyond
the code test.


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


I know accuracy when I see and when I don't.

Everyone needs a coach at times.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

I just read that statement again. It is gobbledygook. Would you wish to
clarify it.

I though it was a Freudian slip! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
. net...
If not, you should at least be aware that what
you're attempting to accomplish (Not really the appropriate word to use
wrt
NCI, but...) will ultimately affect all 680K+.

Actually, it won't. Many hams will be unafected by the changes
in licensing put forth by ARRL, NCVEC as well as others.
Those 100K hams that are already Extra won't be affected by
any license changes.

The degradation of quality wrt the ARS is, for many, an effect...ostensibly
brought on by NCI's lobbying. It's not just about one's individual license
change.

BTW, to all those who feel similarly, please take the time to write (or
e-mail) your elected representatives...and I DON'T mean the ARRL. I just
had
the pleasure of attending a presentation given by an upstate lobbyist
who
explained how easily our elected representatives can become "involved"
re.
an issue as long as they receive an indication of public interest.
Believe
it or not, 15 to 20 e-mails, letters, calls, etc. on a given issue will
likely get it some attention and it will be assigned to a staffer.
Usually
a
casual inquiry will follow. In this case...to the FCC. Take the few
minutes
to fire off an e-mail...it really could make a difference.

Somehow I doubt the elected officals give a hoot about morse code
testing.

Hence the necessity of making them "give a hoot."

73 de Bert
WA2SI