From: Michael Coslo on Jul 28, 10:31 am


K=D8=88B 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 =
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 th=
at
as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-=
out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on rec=
ord as
supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and E=
xtra.

Frankly, I view one time adjustments in about the same vein as I do
temporary taxes.

Imagine the howls when Operator #1 tests the day before the One ti=
me
free upgrade, and operator #2 tests the day after, and gets much less
privileges.

Is that fair? If they both pass the same test, why is one getting
preferential treatment?

There is NO "preferential treatment." A change in LAW has to take
place at a specified time and date. Either fit the LAW or get out.

All it does is substitutes another problem for the perceived first=
problem.

So, how would YOU "fix" it? :-)

Hans, intellectually dishonest is an understatement! It works on s=
o few
levels. I'll be howling on both sides. People should *not* get free
upgrades, and they should *not* be punished for the date on which they
took the test.

What are you going to do? Retroactively enforce something in
disregard of the LAW? Tsk, tsk, not a good thing.

Perhaps they could reduce administrative burden, and do all manner=
of
other wonderful things by simply having a one time adjustment of
everyone to Extra?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. If we've told you once, we've told you a million
times...don't exaggerate!!!

Your technique of non-argument is just "reducto ad absurdum," just
reducing things to an absurd level.

If the LAW changes then all law-abiders should adjust to the
changes. If they don't, they are law-breakers. Simple.

If you can't adjust to change, then seek another venue for your
hobby. Try ballooning to the "edge of space" or something
equally dramatic.=20

yin yan