"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.

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.

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.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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.

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.


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 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.


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.


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.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.


It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.


So NOW we have another story! What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing. Would you
support that? Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.



- Your humble Cassandra...

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

So NOW we have another story!

Another story? Listening to the membership?

What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing.

Illogical construct. To be an NCI member requires opposition
to code testing. That's a basic NCI 101 item.

Would you support that?

Ditto my last comment.

Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I have personally filed my own comments supporting ARRL
with the exception of the code test. I support the NCVEC
petition only to the extent it equals ARRL except I supported,
of course NCVEC's dropping code.

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.

Life goes on, you are free to think whatever you wish
of us. Bottom line, our core agenda goes forward and,
for the moment, we have been asked by our memebrship
take a position on more than just the code issue. In
the end, the FCC is the only place all this matters.

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

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


ARRL has proposed that current Techs/Tech+ be upgraded to General.
Since the current General qualification protocol calls for both the
current Technician written test and an additional more strenuous General
written examination, granting a Technician license to someone who has
not passed that additional examination ipso facto results in a lowering
of written qualifications for the one-third of a million licensees
affected.

Now you can dance around that fact all you want, but you can't change
the reality that the "written qualifications for General" will have been
lowered for roughly 323,055 individuals. We can
pick-fly****-out-of-the-pepper-pot forever wrestling with the niceties
of semantics, but the cold hard fact is that out of the new 'combined'
General class, only 30% would have met todays written qualifications for
that license. The remaining 70% would have met a significantly lower
qualification. That walks like "lowered qualifications", it talks like
"lowered qualifications", it smells like "lowered qualifications", and
in fact IS "lowered qualifications".


| It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
| our (NCI) membership wants.

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote from an email from another of the
NCI directors.

".....our members by an overwhelming percentage
like most parts of the ARRL proposal. That
doesn't translate into what our comments will
end up being; it's like sausage made by a Board
of people. We'll see what happens ...."

I can easily interpret that to mean that the "sausage" may NOT
necessarily include all the ingredients desired by "an overwhelming
percentage" of NCI members.

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

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


ARRL has proposed that current Techs/Tech+ be upgraded to General.
Since the current General qualification protocol calls for both the
current Technician written test and an additional more strenuous General
written examination, granting a Technician license to someone who has
not passed that additional examination ipso facto results in a lowering
of written qualifications for the one-third of a million licensees
affected.

Correct. And then there is the "day after" problem. Anyone that thinks
that there won't be tremndous pressure exerted to KEEP the testing at
the Tech level is less than clever.

By contrast, your plan is wonderful, and you know I have some problems
with your plan. But if it were a choice between the three, You'd have
it. At least yours won't reduce qualifications overall.


Now you can dance around that fact all you want, but you can't change
the reality that the "written qualifications for General" will have been
lowered for roughly 323,055 individuals. We can
pick-fly****-out-of-the-pepper-pot forever wrestling with the niceties
of semantics, but the cold hard fact is that out of the new 'combined'
General class, only 30% would have met todays written qualifications for
that license. The remaining 70% would have met a significantly lower
qualification. That walks like "lowered qualifications", it talks like
"lowered qualifications", it smells like "lowered qualifications", and
in fact IS "lowered qualifications".


| It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
| our (NCI) membership wants.

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote from an email from another of the
NCI directors.

".....our members by an overwhelming percentage
like most parts of the ARRL proposal. That
doesn't translate into what our comments will
end up being; it's like sausage made by a Board
of people. We'll see what happens ...."

I can easily interpret that to mean that the "sausage" may NOT
necessarily include all the ingredients desired by "an overwhelming
percentage" of NCI members.


From what I've seen, a "semi official" position of NCI is "we don't
care what anyone thinks".

- Mike KB3EIA -