Robert Casey wrote:


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.




Who determines what is "harmful"?


I wrote a couple sentences/questions to that effect, that you snipped out.


Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

Nothing is improved by lowering the bar. If most General hams have only
taken the Technician test, then the average tested level is brought down
to somewhere between Technician and General.

None of this is subject to spin, it is just how it is. Simple
mathematics is all it is.

If it isn't improving things, or at least neutral, then it is harming
things.

Database administration isn't a good excuse at all. just imagine how
much database administration would be eased if there were only one
class. So why don't we simply "one time adjust" every ham in the country
to Extra? Everyone will have all the same privileges, so no wondering
what ham is supposed to be at what frequency. That would make
administration EASY.


Would one time adjusting *everyone* to the Extra level be harmful to
the ARS?

Adjusting the Technicians to the next level is an incremental
adjustment of the same. At what level is incrementalism not harmful?


Quick note here. I do not oppose one license class. But it would be at
the Extra level at least.

- mike KB3EIA -