| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#71
November 24th 05, 02:32 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.pirate.radio,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
Bash test publishing
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, I agree with all your comments and analysis. There was a time you clearly believed Bash broke the law, but you do seem to now recognize the many possibilities that are or were potentially in play back in the 60's. Nice write-up. You should keep this text handy for every time the Bash issue resurfaces in this newsgroup. Heck, call it the FAQ on Bash :-) :-) Cheersm Bill K2UNK |
|
#72
November 24th 05, 02:33 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#74
November 24th 05, 03:09 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Wed 16 Nov 2005 19:09 wrote: From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35 wrote in message an old friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Not true, Len. ABSOLUTELY TRUE, Miccolis. Everyone realizes it. Why not admit that it is so? Let's go through it, shall we? Pro-coders (one can only wonder if Len means those who favored morse testing, those who favored morse use or those who were simply proficient at morse code) made up their own regulations. It isn't explained how or if these "pro-coders" all became Extra Class ticket holders. Extra Class license holders can't obtain that license without passing the most difficult theory and regulatory written exam offered in U.S. amateur radio and not all of those with morse code skills became Extra Class licensees. Len's statement appears to have some gaping holes. Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "holes," Heil. An abbreviated synopsis is all. Big holes, Len. Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra code test rate was 20 WPM. Unless a medical waiver was obtained, in which case the Extra could be had for a code test of as little as 5 wpm. The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951 restructuring that also added the Novice and Technician class licenses. The code test speed for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time. That's what Len said. No, it isn't. He left out the part about the medical waivers, which became a reality in 1990. He also said "the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket."" which wasn't the case at all. He sees it differently. I agree that a lot of old timers will not like losing Morse Exam, probably for the reasons Len has cited. I'm sure that people with disabilities really get under your skin. Nope - not at all. Just the one's who get Fast-Code waivers. Why? Because the older-timers influencing the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur radio because so many had been professional telegraphers. No, that's not true at all. It does have that appearance. How? The ARRL did not create the Extra class license in 1951. They did not lobby for it either. Why don't hams working for the FCC have to put away their licenses as to not incur a conflict of interest? What hams worked at FCC in 1951? That would like having a big oil president and vice president holding oil stocks. Do you think they don't? It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement. Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity. What about the thousands of others - like myself - who earned the license because we wanted the privileges? In my case, that was in 1970, at the age of 16. You mom and dad provided you with three hots and a cot. So? That's what responsible parents do. I also had to go to school and make acceptable grades. Do all assigned chores at home and work (yes, I worked then). Plus all the usual activities of a kid my age back then. Or what? Let's say you brought home a "D" in math and science. Math and science were two different subjects in my high school. You don't say? Let's see... In math: 9th grade: Algebra 1 10th grade: Geometry 11th grade: Algebra 2 and Trigonometry 12th grade: AP Calculus In science: 9th grade: Introductory Physics 10th grade: Chemistry 11th grade: Biology 12th grade: AP Physics Never brought home any "D" marks so I don't know what would have happened. I suspect that if I had, there would have been no ham radio until the marks improved. But what if you were in the middle of preparing for another ham test with Bash (or its equivalent) study guides? Of course I had a built-in advantage because I'd learned a lot of math and science for ham radio before I ever got to high school. I earned the Advanced in the summer between 8th and 9th grade, you see. You had an advantage because you started your ham "career" in your youth while supported by your family. Others had an advantage because if they washed out of ditty bopper school in the military they became cooks and MPs. A tidal wave of Morse Operators left the service at the end of WWII. It is plausible that some of them liked the idea of having a special ticket just for high and higher speed code operators with spectrum set-aside just for them. Some might even have found their way into the federal government, and even into the FCC and put the concept of Inventive Licensing into motion. I wonder where all the Veteran ditty-boppers ended up? Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard" than the Amateur Extra exam. You never completed that last test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license and could only get a SECOND class. Kindly prove that the old Amateur Extra was less difficult than the old First Phone. Heil, quit being the snotty lil kid trying to turn tables. That makes YOU look dumb. I took all the test elements for a First 'Phone 49 years ago. I've seen the test elements for an Extra of that time. Where? Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners. They were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC). In fact, back then FCC required 2 years' experience as a General or higher license just to *try* the Extra test. Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. How? Dick Bash did not see the actual exams except by taking them. Then he published them. And FCC did nothing about it. Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute, but the higher ups didn't allow it. Phil Kane has told about it first-hand - he was working in the office where Bash did his thing at the time. Whether Bash broke the letter of the law or not isn't clear, but it *is* clear that he broke the spirit of the law. If, back then, FCC had thought it was OK for people to see the actual exams, they would have been published (as they are now) rather than going through the additional work of making up study guides. The point is that you think Len was incapable of seeing an actual FCC exam or study material published by Bash or other Publishing Houses. The Commercial license was still more difficult than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more modes in Commercial radio then. But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder". It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor than for a commercial endeavor. Wasn't too hard for a 16 year old between 10th and 11th grade. In fact, I'd have gotten it more than a year earlier except for the 2 year waiting period. "The Man" still keeping you down? Not at all. Experience was part of the requirement back then. It was and is a good idea. How about "life" experience, such as an age requirement? "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use." N2EY Brian Burke, you have written that quote here several times, and claimed I wrote it. But I did not write that sentence - you did. Check google and show us what I actually wrote on that subject. I agreed with you then and I agree with you now. You're only agreeing with something you wrote. Not what I wrote. In all fairness, I should recheck the quote. Yes, you should. And its context. I've searched and cannot find it. But just for a moment, let's disregard if you said it, if it is an exact quote, or out of context. Is the Morse Code Exam a barrier to Morse Code use? bb |
|
#75
November 24th 05, 03:17 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. Prison costs money. Fines generate money. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. Any one of those explains what happened, but #3 is the big one. Maybe FCC tried to put a case together but couldn't come up with the hard evidence. It's easy for laymen to play lawyer and say what should and should not happen. But the legal folks in charge have to deal with the real world and how things may turn out. They usually have the experience and knowledge to know what is a viable case and what isn't. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. If they don't want you to take it, yes, it is theft. Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? Nope. Theft by force or threat of force vs. theft by stealth doesn't matter - it's still theft. But the question arises as to who did the theft, if one actually occurred. Bash did not steal exams. He did not sneak into FCC offices, etc. All he did was gather information and publish it. Whether that information was a protected secret of some kind isn't clear. It could be argued that the *real* theft, if any occurred, was done by those who gave the info to Bash. Nobody had to talk to him. Nobody had to take his money. People could have said "I'm not allowed to tell you what's on the test" or "I don't remember". For that matter, they could have been really sneaky and told him wrong information and taken his money anyway. Then his books would have been worse than useless. But more than a few people talked to him, gave him the info he wanted, and took his money. That's as bad or worse than anything he did, IMHO. Because without them, he could not have succeeded. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. And that was when? Before or after Bash? My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. Ah, but that was a Novice test administered by a volunteer examiner, not an FCC office test! In 1967, when I took the Novice at K3NYT's house, (Keystone Ave in Upper Darby, across from the 69th street terminal) the envelope that held the written exam was covered in specific instructions about how to administer the test and not to divulge anything. K3NYT wouldn't even look at it - he just opened the sealed envelope and gave me the papers, then when I was done put them all in the return envelope and sealed it up. In those days you could get a Novice, Tech or Conditional by mail. So it would have been a simple task for an unscrupulous person to make a copy of the written exams for those licenses. But Advanced and Extra were not so easily obtained by mail. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! When I went to the FCC office in 1968 (Tech/Advanced), 1970 (Extra), and 1972 (Second 'Phone) I don't recall anybody saying anything about keeping mum about the test contents. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Or it could have gone the other way and set a precedent that the exams were not protected secrets at all, and killed any hope of FCC ever having secret exams again. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. Agreed, but a moot point now. FCC isn't going back to secret tests in the foreseeable future. Our main possibility is to make the pools so large that it would be easier to simply learn the material than to memorize the answers. Anyone can submit questions to the QPC, so we have no complaint unless we've submitted a bunch. btw, I'll add a few mo 6) Lack of resources. FCC was strapped for enforcement resources in the 1970s, due in large part to the cb mess, and going after Bash may have been judged to be not worth the cost. 7) Embarrassment about the tests. FCC really had only a few versions of each test. That was a big reason for the 30 day wait before retesting. Going after Bash would have simply publicized that fact even more. 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY 8) |
|
#76
November 24th 05, 03:29 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951 restructuring that also added the Novice and Technician class licenses. The code test speed for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time. That's what Len said. But when you say it, it just takes longer. Congratulations. No, it wasn't, but that's OK. We know you were trying to "cover" Lennie's "six". "Len's" Why? Because the older-timers influencing the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur radio because so many had been professional telegraphers. No, that's not true at all. It does have that appearance. Some men in "drag" have a certain "appearance", however certain OTHER truths remain. So with your "argument". What does sexuality have to do with this discussion? Why don't hams working for the FCC have to put away their licenses as to not incur a conflict of interest? That would like having a big oil president and vice president holding oil stocks. I am sorry. Was there a point here? Is there some evidence of a licensed Amateur trying to inappropriately influence the actions of the Commission? Or was that just a feigned pass...?!?! Some facts, please? Your DD Form 214 would be a fact. Your assertions are not. It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement. Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity. What about the thousands of others - like myself - who earned the license because we wanted the privileges? In my case, that was in 1970, at the age of 16. You mom and dad provided you with three hots and a cot. Unless you were raised in an orphanage where the Christians or the County provided the three hots and a cot. Again...A point? (other than the poor grammar?) But poor grammar was the point, Steve. It was a carefully layed traps to bring out the "Net Cop" in you. Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard" than the Amateur Extra exam. You never completed that last test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license and could only get a SECOND class. Kindly prove that the old Amateur Extra was less difficult than the old First Phone. Heil, quit being the snotty lil kid trying to turn tables. That makes YOU look dumb. I took all the test elements for a First 'Phone 49 years ago. I've seen the test elements for an Extra of that time. Where? Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners. They were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC). In fact, back then FCC required 2 years' experience as a General or higher license just to *try* the Extra test. Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. He violated federal law in the process. He should have gone to prison a long time ago. You missed the point. Len was capable of seeing the Extra material of the time. The Commercial license was still more difficult than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more modes in Commercial radio then. But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder". It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor than for a commercial endeavor. Now, thanks to Dick Bash and a whole generation of Burger King'ers, we don't have to do either. The ARRL is a Burger King'er? "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use." N2EY I agreed with you then and I agree with you now. And I disagree with you now as then. Steve, K4YZ Of course you do. That's what defines you. |
|
#77
November 24th 05, 03:37 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, by discussing if Bash broke the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, you just answered your own question of "Where?" Len might have seen the Extra material. Thank you and Congrats. bb |
|
#78
November 24th 05, 04:50 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.pirate.radio,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups: wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. Prison costs money. Fines generate money. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. Any one of those explains what happened, but #3 is the big one. Maybe FCC tried to put a case together but couldn't come up with the hard evidence. It's easy for laymen to play lawyer and say what should and should not happen. But the legal folks in charge have to deal with the real world and how things may turn out. They usually have the experience and knowledge to know what is a viable case and what isn't. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. If they don't want you to take it, yes, it is theft. Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? Nope. Theft by force or threat of force vs. theft by stealth doesn't matter - it's still theft. But the question arises as to who did the theft, if one actually occurred. Bash did not steal exams. He did not sneak into FCC offices, etc. All he did was gather information and publish it. Whether that information was a protected secret of some kind isn't clear. It could be argued that the *real* theft, if any occurred, was done by those who gave the info to Bash. Nobody had to talk to him. Nobody had to take his money. People could have said "I'm not allowed to tell you what's on the test" or "I don't remember". For that matter, they could have been really sneaky and told him wrong information and taken his money anyway. Then his books would have been worse than useless. But more than a few people talked to him, gave him the info he wanted, and took his money. That's as bad or worse than anything he did, IMHO. Because without them, he could not have succeeded. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. And that was when? Before or after Bash? My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. Ah, but that was a Novice test administered by a volunteer examiner, not an FCC office test! In 1967, when I took the Novice at K3NYT's house, (Keystone Ave in Upper Darby, across from the 69th street terminal) the envelope that held the written exam was covered in specific instructions about how to administer the test and not to divulge anything. K3NYT wouldn't even look at it - he just opened the sealed envelope and gave me the papers, then when I was done put them all in the return envelope and sealed it up. In those days you could get a Novice, Tech or Conditional by mail. So it would have been a simple task for an unscrupulous person to make a copy of the written exams for those licenses. But Advanced and Extra were not so easily obtained by mail. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! When I went to the FCC office in 1968 (Tech/Advanced), 1970 (Extra), and 1972 (Second 'Phone) I don't recall anybody saying anything about keeping mum about the test contents. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Or it could have gone the other way and set a precedent that the exams were not protected secrets at all, and killed any hope of FCC ever having secret exams again. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. Agreed, but a moot point now. FCC isn't going back to secret tests in the foreseeable future. Our main possibility is to make the pools so large that it would be easier to simply learn the material than to memorize the answers. Anyone can submit questions to the QPC, so we have no complaint unless we've submitted a bunch. btw, I'll add a few mo 6) Lack of resources. FCC was strapped for enforcement resources in the 1970s, due in large part to the cb mess, and going after Bash may have been judged to be not worth the cost. 7) Embarrassment about the tests. FCC really had only a few versions of each test. That was a big reason for the 30 day wait before retesting. Going after Bash would have simply publicized that fact even more. 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY 8) |
|
#79
November 24th 05, 05:25 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
wrote:
wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, by discussing if Bash broke the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, you just answered your own question of "Where?" Len might have seen the Extra material. Just the opposite. Len claimed he saw the 1957 Extra test element (not the material - the actual *test*). Bash didn't do his thing until the 1970s, more than a decade later. Thank you and Congrats. For what? |
|
#80
November 24th 05, 05:37 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash tests published
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. How? Dick Bash did not see the actual exams except by taking them. Then he published them. And FCC did nothing about it. Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute, but the higher ups didn't allow it. Phil Kane has told about it first-hand - he was working in the office where Bash did his thing at the time. The only thing that can be derive or concluded from that is the probable fact that there was disagreement within the FCC as to the ability to pursue and win any case against Bash. Or any of the other reasons. All it takes is one! Whether Bash broke the letter of the law or not isn't clear, but it *is* clear that he broke the spirit of the law. I never met anyone convicted of breaking the spirit of any law. BINGO!!! There's also "innocent until proven guilty". The other issue that would be in play is the legality of the law itself on constitutional grounds. Possibly, but I find it hard to believe that the FCC would have lost on those grounds. Doing so would set a precedent that *no* license exam contents could be kept out of the public view. Still, FCC may have thought it better not to take that chance. If, back then, FCC had thought it was OK for people to see the actual exams, they would have been published (as they are now) rather than going through the additional work of making up study guides. That's in your opinion anyway. It's also common sense. FCC made up study guides consisting of essay questions that indicated the general areas of knowledge that would be on the test. Those guides were published - ARRL reproduced them in their License Manuals (they specifically mention that fact in the Manual). Why would FCC go through the trouble to make up those guides if it were OK for non-FCC people to see the actual exam? Still, unless there existed specific regulations about divulging and publishing the exam contents, FCC's case agains Bash might have been very weak. The Commercial license was still more difficult than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more modes in Commercial radio then. But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder". It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor than for a commercial endeavor. Wasn't too hard for a 16 year old between 10th and 11th grade. In fact, I'd have gotten it more than a year earlier except for the 2 year waiting period. "The Man" still keeping you down? Not at all. Experience was part of the requirement back then. It was and is a good idea. I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving to all, I thank the Lord for all the great and wonderful people and things in my life. Well said, Bill! I wish the same to all this fine day. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
| DX test Results | Broadcasting | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
Linear Mode
