an_old_friend wrote:

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote


I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requirements!

I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I
am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely
say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements
for written.

NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson is on record as an enthusiastic supporter
of free passes for all Novices and Tech to General, and all Advanced to Extra
without further testing. As I recall, NCI submitted official comments of this
nature to the FCC. Sure smacks of "relaxation of test requirement for written"
to me.


NCI has supported simplifng the maze of licenses out there so what?

I believe that, to you, it is a maze of licenses.

Dave K8MN

"an old friend" wrote

Fred and Bill and I are all free to have opinions on other subjects

Fred and Bill are Directors, and presumably represent all of us members.

When Fred, then Executive Director of NCI, makes a speech proposing reduction of
the technical content of the entry examination, that implies something about the
position of the organization which he leads.

When the Board of Directors does not issue a disclaimer after that speech,
observers (including the FCC) are likely presume that the statement is more than
just the personal opinion of W5YI.

That presumption is reinforced when the same Board of Directors later
enthusiastically supports free upgrades for nearly two-thirds of all licensees
without answering a single test question pertaining to their new license class.

K2UNK can express his personal opinion (and I believe him), but the actions of
NCI leadership are at direct odds with his personal disclaimers. You and I as
individual NCI members can freely express opposing views, but those individual
views carry far less weight than the Board of Directors who express "official
policy".

73, de Hans, K0HB
Member, ARRL, NCI, FISTS, VWOA, SOC, A1-Op, MWA, TCDXA, etc

K=D8HB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

Fred and Bill and I are all free to have opinions on other subjects

Fred and Bill are Directors, and presumably represent all of us members.

agreed but not every thing eitehr or any of them do can be construed as
acting as NCI


When Fred, then Executive Director of NCI, makes a speech proposing reduc=
tion of
the technical content of the entry examination, that implies something ab=
out the
position of the organization which he leads.

In your mind I guess it does, not having heard the speech, in context,
I don't assmue that, any more than I assume that everything Roberts has
filled for his cleints represents his own views

When the Board of Directors does not issue a disclaimer after that speech,
observers (including the FCC) are likely presume that the statement is mo=
re than
just the personal opinion of W5YI.

obviously you do, but if he made that speech in his capity as head of
W5YI VEc group then I would be less likely to assume that

and you should KNOW what assuming does Hans

That presumption is reinforced when the same Board of Directors later
enthusiastically supports free upgrades for nearly two-thirds of all lice=
nsees
without answering a single test question pertaining to their new license =
class.

you bust the chops of NCI and Not the ARRL for this, interesting


K2UNK can express his personal opinion (and I believe him), but the actio=
ns of
NCI leadership are at direct odds with his personal disclaimers. You and=
I as
individual NCI members can freely express opposing views, but those indiv=
idual
views carry far less weight than the Board of Directors who express "offi=
cial
policy".

but only if you assume that NCI was endorsing a true lowering of
standards instead of supporting a reduction of the current mess of
differing classes. Youa re reading a great deal into the position with
very little to back it up


73, de Hans, K0HB
Member, ARRL, NCI, FISTS, VWOA, SOC, A1-Op, MWA, TCDXA, etc

"an old friend" wrote

you bust the chops of NCI and Not the
ARRL for this, interesting

Read my comments to the FCC regarding the ARRL proposal. I did a lot more than
"bust their chops". If you've a copy of the FCC NPRM, turn to page 17,
paragraph 31, then look up the document rerenced at footnote 142. It's on
public record at the FCC ECFS web site.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

you bust the chops of NCI and Not the
ARRL for this, interesting

then you may revise my remarks to you bust the chops of NCI and Not the
ARRL for this, in RRAP, interesting

you might also bae in mind thaT i normaly reffereing to the groups, But
i do forget you are so picky about wording about as bad as Stevie


Read my comments to the FCC regarding the ARRL proposal. I did a lot mor=
e than
"bust their chops". If you've a copy of the FCC NPRM, turn to page 17,
paragraph 31, then look up the document rerenced at footnote 142. It's on
public record at the FCC ECFS web site.
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an old friend" wrote

then you may revise my remarks to you bust the chops
of NCI and Not the ARRL for this, in RRAP, interesting

An NCI Director showed up here, so I challenged him on the issue.

If an ARRL Director or NCVEC Director shows up here, I'll do likewise.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

then you may revise my remarks to you bust the chops
of NCI and Not the ARRL for this, in RRAP, interesting

An NCI Director showed up here, so I challenged him on the issue.

and so prodose an impression prehaps different than you intend, your
choice of course, but as I said intersting, to me at any rate

If an ARRL Director or NCVEC Director shows up here, I'll do likewise.
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
..
I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influence on
the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VEC.

73, de Hans, K0HB



I knew W5YI personally, he belonged to the same radio club I belonged
to. I wouldn't give him the time of day. They guy is a joke.

From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:31 pm

"an old friend" wrote

Fred and Bill and I are all free to have opinions on other subjects

Fred and Bill are Directors, and presumably represent all of us members.

Have they SAID so, in public? I don't think so. It IS implicit
that any "directors" DO represent the membership, though.

Has the ARRL said it "represents all radio amateurs?" You betcha
and for years. That's "okay" but a small special-interest group
is in ten kinds of hot water, ain't it? :-)

When Fred, then Executive Director of NCI, makes a speech proposing reduct=
ion of
the technical content of the entry examination, that implies something abo=
ut the
position of the organization which he leads.

Tsk, you've messed up present and past tenses. Are you tense?

I think that regular readers are fully aware of your personal
dislike of Fred Maia. You need not repeat yourself too much.

When the Board of Directors does not issue a disclaimer after that speech,
observers (including the FCC) are likely presume that the statement is mor=
e than
just the personal opinion of W5YI.

I love it when the ARRL is somehow sacrosact and NO ONE dare
question THEIR board of directors...yet a small special-interest
group is suddenly ACCUSED of implied perfidy!

That presumption is reinforced when the same Board of Directors later
enthusiastically supports free upgrades for nearly two-thirds of all licen=
sees
without answering a single test question pertaining to their new license c=
lass.

Tsk, tsk. If the FCC wished, they could eliminate ALL testing
and licensing of U.S. radio amateurs...or not...all without the
permission of K stroke-O H B! Really...

K2UNK can express his personal opinion (and I believe him), but the action=
s of
NCI leadership are at direct odds with his personal disclaimers. You and =
I as
individual NCI members can freely express opposing views, but those indivi=
dual
views carry far less weight than the Board of Directors who express "offic=
ial
policy".

Hot damn...perfect SPIN by a manager on management!!!

Priceless! :-)

That's straight out of Manager's Charm School coursebook.

Good luck on continued harrassment of Mark. It becomes you
and all the other wonderful amateur extras in here. Show
everybody who is BOSS!


73, de Hans, K0HB
Member, ARRL, NCI, FISTS, VWOA, SOC, A1-Op, MWA, TCDXA, etc

Sunnuvagun...lookit all dem memberships! :-)

Tsk. All I can claim is support of the NCI endeavors as a
member...and as a citizen of the United States and as a
veteran of Army service...IN radio communications there.
Obviously must not be enough for this holy group. :-(

dit bit

commander bath tub fleet:

Most likely, I'd like the guy...

John

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
.
I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influence
on the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with
W5YI-VEC.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I knew W5YI personally, he belonged to the same radio club I belonged to. I
wouldn't give him the time of day. They guy is a joke.

wrote

I think that regular readers are fully aware
of your personal dislike of Fred Maia.

I've never met the guy, so it'd be pretty far fetched to suggest have a
"personal dislike" for him.

I certainly, however, disagree with a lot of his philosophy.

Same applies to you. My guess, from what I see here, is that you're a humorous
guy, good conversationalist, and that we'd find much in common. But having
never met you, I can't pretend a "personal like" or a "personal dislike" for
you. I certainly, however, disagree with much of the philosophy you express
here.

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

KXHB:

Good to remind everyone of this...

After this rather "heated discussion" drinks and dinner will be served in the
dining room--and everyone will be given the opportunity to shake hands...
girly-men will be denied access! grin

John

"KXHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote

I think that regular readers are fully aware
of your personal dislike of Fred Maia.

I've never met the guy, so it'd be pretty far fetched to suggest have a
"personal dislike" for him.

I certainly, however, disagree with a lot of his philosophy.

Same applies to you. My guess, from what I see here, is that you're a
humorous guy, good conversationalist, and that we'd find much in common. But
having never met you, I can't pretend a "personal like" or a "personal
dislike" for you. I certainly, however, disagree with much of the
philosophy you express here.

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

From: "K0HB" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 21:55


"an old friend" wrote

then you may revise my remarks to you bust the chops
of NCI and Not the ARRL for this, in RRAP, interesting

An NCI Director showed up here, so I challenged him on the issue.

THREE NCI Directors have shown up in here. You've challenged
all three. shrug

If an ARRL Director or NCVEC Director shows up here, I'll do likewise.

Jim Haynie showed up in here. Did you challenge HIM? I
don't recall if you did or not...seems like you didn't.
We had a short chat in public, a longer one in private
e-mail.

There's a terrific amount of gratuitous bravado displayed
by all those saying what they WOULD do. Not a great deal
of evidence that those with bravado actually DO that...

bit bit

wrote:
From: "K0HB" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 21:55


"an old friend" wrote

then you may revise my remarks to you bust the chops
of NCI and Not the ARRL for this, in RRAP, interesting

An NCI Director showed up here, so I challenged him on the issue.

THREE NCI Directors have shown up in here. You've challenged
all three. shrug

If an ARRL Director or NCVEC Director shows up here, I'll do likewise.

Jim Haynie showed up in here. Did you challenge HIM? I
don't recall if you did or not...seems like you didn't.
We had a short chat in public, a longer one in private
e-mail.

I reconize the Name Jim Haynie, but that is all who is he exactly

Having let my membership lapse years ago

There's a terrific amount of gratuitous bravado displayed
by all those saying what they WOULD do. Not a great deal
of evidence that those with bravado actually DO that...

bit bit

From: K0HB on Jul 29, 4:36 pm


wrote

I think that regular readers are fully aware
of your personal dislike of Fred Maia.

I've never met the guy, so it'd be pretty far fetched to suggest have a
"personal dislike" for him.

I certainly, however, disagree with a lot of his philosophy.

In the CONTEXT of the subject, "personal dislike" in newsgroups
is to be expected...ACTING on such personal dislike in a puerile
juvenile middle-school manner instead of the subject matter is
an indication that the responder has no valid argument on the
SUBJECT.

As a manager, you should be aware that personal preferences in
personalities have NO validity for business purposes. Yes,
there should be a balance there in order to preserve a working
crew, to avoid an evacuation en masse (I've seen it happen) due
to overbearing management techniques. The purpose of business
is business. Similarly, discussion of regulations affecting
the ENTIRETY of citizens under an administration, should be
conducted in a venue concentrating on the SUBJECTS, not the
present form of juvenile very-personal insults and cat-calls
by those whose only interest is very, very personal desires.

Those looking for "hail fellow well met" type of ambience should
go straight to the nearest lodge hall and hang out. There
WILL ALWAYS be disagreement on subjects. Amateur radio is not
a military unit of national service, not a union, not a guild,
not a craft of professionals. It isn't even a fraternal order
of the local variety. There is NO "requirement" except in the
minds of too many that "all must think/do/perform in the SAME
manner" or be forever consigned to some mythical hell.

There IS a great variety in amateur radio, a personal recreation
spread over the entire country, not just at some imaginary
local lodge hall. The "rank" and "status" and "privilege"
put on various classes of federal license is largely an
artificiality applied by previous humans into codified law.

Same applies to you. My guess, from what I see here, is that you're a humorous
guy, good conversationalist, and that we'd find much in common.

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for the purposes of discussing anything in
regards to federal regulations affecting ALL citizens,
interested or not interested in taking up licensed amateur
radio. As I just said, if you NEED a local lodge hall
environment, go there and feel more comfortable with like-
minded individuals. All can think in the same line of
thought, feel secure in the company of "peers."

Evidenciary in here is that MOST of the posters NEED this
commonality, indeed thrive on it. Those who do not agree
with such common, like-minded thinking, are treated with the
basest sort of outright BIGOTRY not confined solely to race.

I really don't care one bit what YOU personally like or
dislike. Matters not to the SUBJECT which can affect each
and every citizen of the USA who might be interested in
amateur radio...regulations that would apply to ALL and
not the self-propelled few who insist in ham radio built
in THEIR image.

But having
never met you, I can't pretend a "personal like" or a "personal dislike" for
you. I certainly, however, disagree with much of the philosophy you express
here.

That is, again, totally irrelevant to the SUBJECT of federal
regulations which involve the totality of ALL citizens in
regards to radio matters. This venue is NOT a popularity
contest, of personalities who see themselves as "leaders"
(yet it is obvious that this is what they seek in here).
Those who have a NEED to control others, to be "leaders,"
can find sustenance in local fraternal orders by running for
office THERE. In HERE it is a discussion on ISSUES of
amateur radio policy...or that was the intention however else
its inhabitants have failed in carrying out the purpose.

On "philosophy" (of some imaginary grouping), that is a very
presonal inside-the-head construct, a complex matter that is
very NOT shared by all others except in gross generalities.

As I've often remarked, electrons fields and waves do NOT
obey any human desires, wishes, or fantasies. Those very
electrons, fields, and waves are the HEART of the entirety
of radio, the things that make it work. Magic and fantsay
do nothing in technology that obeys only physical laws. That
some HUMANS have codified laws in a certain manner does NOT
mean that such human laws affect the physical laws. Radio
itself does not work on the emotional state of federally-
authorized licensed (certificate suitable for framing)
radio operators.

Someone once wrote in here "gentlemen can disagree without
being disagreeable." Wonder who that was?

bit bit

Len:

In this new "feels good generation" I suppose you are supposed to disguise all
dislikes and keep them a "state secret."

Frankly, I hail from a time when you were tested and knew your worth, from then
on you went about your business, independent of others expectations or demands.

Back then, it was considered poor form to not allow others their personal
opinions, beliefs and prejudices.

Since I made it though that time, I accepted that NOT all others could be
expected to "like" me, indeed, I have never found the occasion where another
mans' opinion either "makes me" or "breaks me." And, tools have been provided
to me by my creator (whether that creator hailed from a mud puddle or exists as
a GOD) and placed between my ears to allow me to realize all of this.

Now it seems, others expect to control the opinion one forms of them--the
future will see if they are successful or not... I think NOT!

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: K0HB on Jul 29, 4:36 pm


wrote

I think that regular readers are fully aware
of your personal dislike of Fred Maia.

I've never met the guy, so it'd be pretty far fetched to suggest have a
"personal dislike" for him.

I certainly, however, disagree with a lot of his philosophy.

In the CONTEXT of the subject, "personal dislike" in newsgroups
is to be expected...ACTING on such personal dislike in a puerile
juvenile middle-school manner instead of the subject matter is
an indication that the responder has no valid argument on the
SUBJECT.

As a manager, you should be aware that personal preferences in
personalities have NO validity for business purposes. Yes,
there should be a balance there in order to preserve a working
crew, to avoid an evacuation en masse (I've seen it happen) due
to overbearing management techniques. The purpose of business
is business. Similarly, discussion of regulations affecting
the ENTIRETY of citizens under an administration, should be
conducted in a venue concentrating on the SUBJECTS, not the
present form of juvenile very-personal insults and cat-calls
by those whose only interest is very, very personal desires.

Those looking for "hail fellow well met" type of ambience should
go straight to the nearest lodge hall and hang out. There
WILL ALWAYS be disagreement on subjects. Amateur radio is not
a military unit of national service, not a union, not a guild,
not a craft of professionals. It isn't even a fraternal order
of the local variety. There is NO "requirement" except in the
minds of too many that "all must think/do/perform in the SAME
manner" or be forever consigned to some mythical hell.

There IS a great variety in amateur radio, a personal recreation
spread over the entire country, not just at some imaginary
local lodge hall. The "rank" and "status" and "privilege"
put on various classes of federal license is largely an
artificiality applied by previous humans into codified law.

Same applies to you. My guess, from what I see here, is that you're a
humorous
guy, good conversationalist, and that we'd find much in common.

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for the purposes of discussing anything in
regards to federal regulations affecting ALL citizens,
interested or not interested in taking up licensed amateur
radio. As I just said, if you NEED a local lodge hall
environment, go there and feel more comfortable with like-
minded individuals. All can think in the same line of
thought, feel secure in the company of "peers."

Evidenciary in here is that MOST of the posters NEED this
commonality, indeed thrive on it. Those who do not agree
with such common, like-minded thinking, are treated with the
basest sort of outright BIGOTRY not confined solely to race.

I really don't care one bit what YOU personally like or
dislike. Matters not to the SUBJECT which can affect each
and every citizen of the USA who might be interested in
amateur radio...regulations that would apply to ALL and
not the self-propelled few who insist in ham radio built
in THEIR image.

But having
never met you, I can't pretend a "personal like" or a "personal dislike" for
you. I certainly, however, disagree with much of the philosophy you express
here.

That is, again, totally irrelevant to the SUBJECT of federal
regulations which involve the totality of ALL citizens in
regards to radio matters. This venue is NOT a popularity
contest, of personalities who see themselves as "leaders"
(yet it is obvious that this is what they seek in here).
Those who have a NEED to control others, to be "leaders,"
can find sustenance in local fraternal orders by running for
office THERE. In HERE it is a discussion on ISSUES of
amateur radio policy...or that was the intention however else
its inhabitants have failed in carrying out the purpose.

On "philosophy" (of some imaginary grouping), that is a very
presonal inside-the-head construct, a complex matter that is
very NOT shared by all others except in gross generalities.

As I've often remarked, electrons fields and waves do NOT
obey any human desires, wishes, or fantasies. Those very
electrons, fields, and waves are the HEART of the entirety
of radio, the things that make it work. Magic and fantsay
do nothing in technology that obeys only physical laws. That
some HUMANS have codified laws in a certain manner does NOT
mean that such human laws affect the physical laws. Radio
itself does not work on the emotional state of federally-
authorized licensed (certificate suitable for framing)
radio operators.

Someone once wrote in here "gentlemen can disagree without
being disagreeable." Wonder who that was?

bit bit

John Smith wrote:
KXHB:

Good to remind everyone of this...

After this rather "heated discussion" drinks and dinner will be served in the
dining room--and everyone will be given the opportunity to shake hands...
girly-men will be denied access! grin

Steve won't like being excluded.

From: "John Smith" on Sat 30 Jul 2005 11:30

Len:

In this new "feels good generation" I suppose you are supposed to disguise all
dislikes and keep them a "state secret."

ABSALUTEL, boychik!

Frankly, I hail from a time when you were tested and knew your worth, from then
on you went about your business, independent of others expectations or demands.

You spent time in hail? Hail, hail, the gang's all here?

No, no, NO, good sir, in HERE one MUST "demonstrate dedication
and committment to the amateur community" by CONFORMING to old,
trite, archaic standards and practices!

In other words, one has to simply LOVE (and cherish, til death
do you part) MORSMANSHIP! It's the "amateur way!"

Back then, it was considered poor form to not allow others their personal
opinions, beliefs and prejudices.

Yah, yah, bin dere, done dat.

Remember, I "hail" from an earlier time. However, when I first
got "into" radio, HF radio at that, tube amps still tuned up by
"dipping the plate and peaking the grid." Half a century later
there are STILL HF transmitters with tube finals and they STILL
tune up "dipping the plate and peaking the grid!"

Sunnuvagun!

Since I made it though that time, I accepted that NOT all others could be
expected to "like" me, indeed, I have never found the occasion where another
mans' opinion either "makes me" or "breaks me." And, tools have been provided
to me by my creator (whether that creator hailed from a mud puddle or exists as
a GOD) and placed between my ears to allow me to realize all of this.

Ah, yas, me too. BUT...this be Mighty Macho Morseman hang-out
and Blog where you MUST CONFORM or they (the MMM) try to make
you die. Independent thought is NOT ALLOWED!

Now it seems, others expect to control the opinion one forms of them--the
future will see if they are successful or not... I think NOT!

Every generation spawns a new set of CONTROL FREAKS. Like leeches
they crawl in and try to suck blood from independent thought
processes. Or, they OD on "caffeinated drinks" and expect to
**** on your grave. :-)

Or, they expect you to "take holy orders" at the Church of
St. Hiram and take Vows of morsemanship while always obeying
the papal bull from Newington. Amen.

up Gregorian chant in BG, overlay credit crawl, take black

Most bestest ever re-guards,

bop hop

wrote


As a manager, you should be aware that personal preferences in
personalities have NO validity for business purposes.


There is no "manager" class license in the US Amateur Radio Service. Point
dismissed.



The purpose of business is business


Prominent framed sign in my office says: "Never forget that the business of
life is living, not business."

If you wish, you can see our "business:
https://www6.adc.com/ecom/hier?NODE=OND66399 at the Fort Sneeze AFCEA C4IST show
in early October. I'll bring you a copy of my framed sign.


I really don't care one bit what YOU personally like or
dislike.


Likewise, I'm sure.


Someone once wrote in here "gentlemen can disagree without
being disagreeable." Wonder who that was?


Henry Thoreau, if memory serves correctly.

beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

John Smith wrote:
Len:

In this new "feels good generation" I suppose you are supposed to disguise all
dislikes and keep them a "state secret."

Frankly, I hail from a time when you were tested and knew your worth, from then
on you went about your business, independent of others expectations or demands.

Back then, it was considered poor form to not allow others their personal
opinions, beliefs and prejudices.

Since I made it though that time, I accepted that NOT all others could be
expected to "like" me, indeed, I have never found the occasion where another
mans' opinion either "makes me" or "breaks me."

Dang! There goes Steve's wishful theory.

And, tools have been provided
to me by my creator (whether that creator hailed from a mud puddle or exists as
a GOD) and placed between my ears to allow me to realize all of this.

Now it seems, others expect to control the opinion one forms of them--the
future will see if they are successful or not... I think NOT!

John

Not!

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Someone once wrote in here "gentlemen can disagree without
being disagreeable." Wonder who that was?

Henry Thoreau, if memory serves correctly.

beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Han's, I miss Hank. Never did catch his callsign, but he sure knew how
to act gentlemanly.

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

I think that regular readers are fully aware
of your personal dislike of Fred Maia.

I've never met the guy, so it'd be pretty far fetched to suggest have a
"personal dislike" for him.

hardly after Stevei has never met and there is NO room for doubt that
he at least dislikes me

I certainly, however, disagree with a lot of his philosophy.

Same applies to you. My guess, from what I see here, is that you're a hu=
morous
guy, good conversationalist, and that we'd find much in common. But havi=
ng
never met you, I can't pretend a "personal like" or a "personal dislike" =
for
you. I certainly, however, disagree with much of the philosophy you exp=
ress
here.
=20
dit dit
de Hans, K0HB