"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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
for 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 supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for
General and Extra.

In your opinion that is.

Hans, we covered all the same territory in this newsgroup
when NCI filed its own petition and also filed responses
to others. For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Darn arrl is worse than a pervert with a box of lollypops around the kids...

Attempting to fool the poor dumb cb'ers into thinking they helped 'em get free
upgrades so they'd buy a membership, it is evil I tell you, evil! Those NC
techs would probably have fallen for it too...

John

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

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

"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 for
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
supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and
Extra.

In your opinion that is.

Hans, we covered all the same territory in this newsgroup
when NCI filed its own petition and also filed responses
to others. For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

It was a moot point, until you tried to distance yourself and the other
Directors from your enthusiastic support of those free upgrades ("none of them
want relaxation of test requirements for written").

Clearly they DID want such relaxation, to the tune of almost 2/3 of all hams
getting "relaxed" right up to the next class of license.

Cheers to you also,

de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the
FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway.

It was a moot point, until you tried to distance yourself and the other
Directors from your enthusiastic support of those free upgrades ("none of
them want relaxation of test requirements for written").

One time vs permananent. We obviously differ as to
what that translates too. For now, again, it is a mute
point.

Clearly they DID want such relaxation, to the tune of almost 2/3 of all
hams getting "relaxed" right up to the next class of license.

We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote


We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.


A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive Director
of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia.

Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI)

I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since people who
acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment assembled
these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to
"home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of questions
regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on
operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory
questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license tests.

In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Technician
examination.

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

K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.


A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive D=
irector
of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia.

Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI)

I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since peop=
le who
acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment ass=
embled
these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to
"home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of quest=
ions
regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) =
should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on
operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory
questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license te=
sts.

In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Techn=
ician
examination.

I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influen=
ce on
the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VE=
C=2E

I think Fred's very "unique" ideas about Amatuer Radio and VE
testing are no doubt part-and-parcel of the inordinately high number of
people who require re-test by the FCC.

He should be ashamed.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Allow to point out the flaw in your reasoning

Fred W5YI has his opinions, Bill has his opinion (I am sure not all of
which are the same) I have mine which other than supporting the end of
code testing deverge as well

NCI's opinion and action are based on the common threads of the
membership and BoD

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

This line of attack makes no more sense than saying NCI hates code use,
because some of it memeber, like myself, think (and express) the ARS
would be better off if the ARS abandoned Morse code USE

NCI is colaition with members holding a wide range of opinions

K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent
change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have
to disagree as to what that translates to. You are
entitled to your opinion, as am I.


A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive D=
irector
of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia.

Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI)

I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since peop=
le who
acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment ass=
embled
these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to
"home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of quest=
ions
regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) =
should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on
operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory
questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license te=
sts.

In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Techn=
ician
examination.

I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influen=
ce on
the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VE=
C=2E
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"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

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