K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


The support is/was for ONE-TIME free upgrades as proposed by
the ARRL petition and one or two others. No support was
given to any permananent relaxation of written tests by NCI.


Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test f=
or
General and another 75,730 would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the
requirement to test for Extra. That's means that 421,532 individuals, or=
63.4%
of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they had not=
passed
the current written examination. Trying to trivialize that as a simple
"one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any
reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as support=
ing a
lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra.

by no reasonable measure

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large
scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

something that is clearly different from changing the number of tests
or their level of diffultity

you are just trying to pick a fight it seems

=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

At this URL --- http://tinyurl.com/wce9 there is a proposed change which
migrates from the current license structure to a simplified 2-class structure
with NO free upgrades and with NO loss of privilege for any existing licensee.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

I said the poetencail for not a requirement of

so what I have just cut is irrelavant

during any time of change great upheavels are possible

I know this is unsettleing for you Hans but them is the facts
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an_old_friend" wrote

KØHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

73, de Hans, K0HB

yeah, no one likes change but a baby with a wet diaper!

john

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

"an_old_friend" wrote

KXHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

which has nothing to do with the point any change has the potentail
even your "proposal" has the potentail for large changes since their is
of course no assuance that it would be adpoted as is

Any time the Govt decides to changes regs there exists a protentail for
upheaval

indeed your proposal is an a large scale upheaval in just going to 2
clases instead of the 6 we still have on the books

your proposal is a large scale adjudgement
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote


KØHB wrote:

"an_old_friend" wrote


In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!


True absolutely ture


Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

73, de Hans, K0HB


For goodness sakes, don't confuse the idiot with facts. He can't handle
facts. Lets see, he did manage to get most of the letters in the word
POTENTIAL, now if he just had enough brains to get them in the right order.