KØHB wrote:
K4CAP/K4YZ wrote: (about license fees)


I think fees in the $25/year range would not be inappropriate.


So let's take a poll:

Q1: If it cost $250 (plus testing fees) for a 10-year license would you
have become a new amateur radio operator?

--- or ---

Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over your ham
radio career, would your license have lapsed by now?



Here are my responses:

Q1: Not a chance.

Q2: When raising a family, spending $250 on a discretionary avocational
item would have been out of the question.


There are probably better ways to make a poll like this, Hans. Your poll
tips all off to your opinion, and won't allow for a good answer from the
pollees. (is that a word?)

Since opinions vary in intensity even among people agreeing on a
subject, it might be better to use a agree disagree scale with say 5
possible answers:

Q1. The Ham license fee should be $250 for a ten year period.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q2. I would support a $250 Ham radio license fee if it was tied to
increased enforcement

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q3. I would never support a $250 Ham radio license fee.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q4. I would pay $250 for a ten year Ham license.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q5. A ham license is worth $250 for a ten year period

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q6. $250 is too much for a 10 year Ham license.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q7. If the fee for a Ham license were $250 for a ten year term, I would
allow my license to lapse.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q8. I would prefer to pay for a $250 license fee once every 10 years, if
it was the case.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q9. Paying for a $250 license fee at the rate of $25 per year is the
best way of financing the fee, if it was the case.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q10. There should be no license fee, ever

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Then allow a section for comments.

This way you'll get your answers, but without tying the person to a
digital yes/no response. Digital responses are usually way too broad to
be of much use.

My response to this new poll would be:

1 - C
2 - D
3 - B
4 - E
5 - E
6 - D
7 - A
8 - A
9 - B
10 - B

So this puts me down as a person that is neutral on the idea of a $250
dollar fee, but would support such a thing if it were tied to increased
enforcement. I'd never say I would never support such a fee. I think the
fee is too much, but would not allow my license to lapse if the fee were
that much. I'd also prefer to pay the fee at once, rather than spread it
out. And I'd never say there should never be a fee.

Or to answer your poll:

1 - yes
2 - yes


- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 8/12/2004 7:59 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

KØHB wrote:
K4CAP/K4YZ wrote: (about license fees)


I think fees in the $25/year range would not be inappropriate.


So let's take a poll:

Snip to Mike's comments...

There are probably better ways to make a poll like this, Hans. Your poll
tips all off to your opinion, and won't allow for a good answer from the
pollees. (is that a word?)

My point exactly. Hans' "poll" was so skewed that one would be hard to
NOT answer it the way HE wanted it answered...NOT necessarily how it SHOULD be
answered.

Since opinions vary in intensity even among people agreeing on a
subject, it might be better to use a agree disagree scale with say 5
possible answers:

Snipped too...Excellent alternatives, Mike...Nice job.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

Hans' "poll" was so skewed that one would be hard to
NOT answer it the way HE wanted it answered.

Awwww gee, Captain Obvious, ya figured it out! Kinda like your leading
question as to whether we should "trivalize the Amateur Radio service
so we can accomodate the FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer,
broads and booze?"

Sunuvagun!

72.5, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/12/2004 3:40 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

Hans' "poll" was so skewed that one would be hard to
NOT answer it the way HE wanted it answered.

Awwww gee, Captain Obvious, ya figured it out!

Then why don't you just ask people if they agree with you, rather than
suggest it's a "poll"?

Kinda like your leading
question as to whether we should "trivalize the Amateur Radio service
so we can accomodate the FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer,
broads and booze?"

Quoted out of context...Again, I'd expect nothing less, Hans.

Jim Miccolis made a SPECIFIC reference to a person he supposedly knew who
was addicted to tobacco, and suggested in his post that his friend would rather
spend money on his addiction than divert the money to Amateur Radio.

I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few who
would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions?

Sunuvagun!

Sunuvagun yourself. What "point", other than proving you can quote out of
context, do you think you have made? If it was to try and appear antagonistic
rather than objective, you did it in spades.

72.5

Again, once more with not quite enough...Why am I not surprised?

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few
who
would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions?


Tobacco is a p(r)urient addiction?

Sunuvagun! If I'd known that, I'd never have retired my meerschaums.

71, de Hans, K0HB

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Kinda like your leading
question as to whether we should "trivalize the Amateur Radio service
so we can accomodate the FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer,
broads and booze?"

Quoted out of context...Again, I'd expect nothing less, Hans.

Jim Miccolis made a SPECIFIC reference to a person he supposedly knew
who
was addicted to tobacco, and suggested in his post that his friend would
rather spend money on his addiction than divert the money to Amateur Radio.

I think *I'm* being quoted out of context there...

My point about my smoking friend was that, in *his* value system, smoking a lot
took higher priority than saving up for a ham station. Part of this was no
doubt addiction-fueled, but another part was that he even though he bought 'em
by the carton, his cigarette expenditures were relatively small, relatively
frequent purchases. If he had to buy a year's worth of smokes all at once, he
might have quit.

I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few who
would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions?

How is Hans' or my opposition to license fees trivializing amateur radio?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/12/2004 6:56 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Kinda like your leading
question as to whether we should "trivalize the Amateur Radio service
so we can accomodate the FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer,
broads and booze?"

Quoted out of context...Again, I'd expect nothing less, Hans.

Jim Miccolis made a SPECIFIC reference to a person he supposedly knew
who
was addicted to tobacco, and suggested in his post that his friend would
rather spend money on his addiction than divert the money to Amateur Radio.

I think *I'm* being quoted out of context there...

My point about my smoking friend was that, in *his* value system, smoking a
lot
took higher priority than saving up for a ham station. Part of this was no
doubt addiction-fueled, but another part was that he even though he bought
'em
by the carton, his cigarette expenditures were relatively small, relatively
frequent purchases. If he had to buy a year's worth of smokes all at once, he
might have quit.

I don't think I was misquoting or quoting out of context at all, Jim.

YOU made a point of using your friend as a case-in-point.

MY point is that is someone wants to prioritize his addictions before
Amateur Radio (or bass fishing, or knitting or golfing...etc...) then who
needed him in the first place?

I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few who
would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions?

How is Hans' or my opposition to license fees trivializing amateur radio?

YOUR post, Jim, suggests that we not enact fees since if we enacted fees
it would somehow prevent Amateur Radio from attracting people who would then
have to choose between supporting an addiction OR funding Amateur Radio
activities.

73

Steve, K4YZ