Slow,
It's is a shame you have to:

1- talk like this and
2- have so little respect for others and
3- have no ability to rationally discuss prows and cons complex issues and
4- have a poor understanding of what makes a good ham and
5- have so little understanding some real-world practical aspects of this
issue and most importantly...
6- show such poor ham characteristics.
7- and probably have so little real knowledge of ham radio, is my guess.
and
8- be a troll

If you're also a 20 WPM extra, then we can easily do without your immature
attitudes and behaviors here and on the bands.

Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed their
small minds.

73, Steve, K9DCI
Please carefully note the date of my Extra when you check QRZ.

[[.swap post omitted]]

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bert Hyman wrote in
:

(Travis Jordan) wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class.

This sounds like a great way to kill off amateur radio.

Sounds more like a proposal from somebody who runs a VE service.




I just knew none of you rotton scum would help. You Gotta have your free
handouts don't you. ARRL pampered you well. I'll bet you all pay for your
food with food stamps and talk on CB all day long from government assisted
project housing.

Assholes.

In "Steve N."
wrote:


Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.


Well, the thread was dead a week ago and it's a shame you had to start
it up again.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Bert Hyman wrote:
In "Steve N."
wrote:


Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.


Well, the thread was dead a week ago and it's a shame you had to start
it up again.

OTOH it does beat most of the thread that get tajken by wsimen rantig
and raving and foaming at the mouth

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"Steve N." wrote in
:

Slow,
It's is a shame you have to:

1- talk like this and
2- have so little respect for others and
3- have no ability to rationally discuss prows and cons complex issues
and 4- have a poor understanding of what makes a good ham and
5- have so little understanding some real-world practical aspects of
this issue and most importantly...
6- show such poor ham characteristics.
7- and probably have so little real knowledge of ham radio, is my guess.
and
8- be a troll

If you're also a 20 WPM extra, then we can easily do without your
immature attitudes and behaviors here and on the bands.

Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.

73, Steve, K9DCI


Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:


No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.


The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.


Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.


Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.


sc

Slow Code wrote:
"Steve N." wrote in
:

Slow,
It's is a shame you have to:

1- talk like this and
2- have so little respect for others and
3- have no ability to rationally discuss prows and cons complex issues
and 4- have a poor understanding of what makes a good ham and
5- have so little understanding some real-world practical aspects of
this issue and most importantly...
6- show such poor ham characteristics.
7- and probably have so little real knowledge of ham radio, is my guess.
and
8- be a troll

If you're also a 20 WPM extra, then we can easily do without your
immature attitudes and behaviors here and on the bands.

Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.

73, Steve, K9DCI


Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:


but he aswer that in in 3 and 4 and 5

In article . net,
Slow Code wrote:

Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:

Meta-comment: I think that if all of the ideas you propose were
actually enacted into regulation, and then ten years were go by, the
United States Amateur Radio Service would be unlikely to have more
than 1/4 of the number of licencees that it has today.

That's great if you want to create a "private club" for a few years
after that.

However, it's lousy if you want there to actually *be* an Amateur
Radio Service twenty or thirty years from now. With so few licensees
and as little activity as I think there'd be after such a decimation,
the odds are good that a lot of the U.S. amateur radio bands would be
"re-purposed" for other spectrum users.

No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.

Unlikely to pass, due to the cost and bureaucratic overhead.

I'd guess that at least a third of current licensees coming up for
renewal would decide not to bother, and let their licenses lapse (and
that's in addition to the rate of non-renewal which takes place today).

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

I'd have no real objection to this. Dunno if it's a good idea or a
bad idea.

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

This will never happen, for two major reasons:

[1] CW is no longer an international treaty requirement AT ALL.
The results of the WARC conferences made it clear that the
international community considers CW a useful mode, and a big
part of amateur tradition, but that it's no longer in sufficient
use in military/commercial applications to justify making it
a legal requirement for amateur HF licensing.

[2] The FCC has made it quite clear (in their responses to the
numerous petitions filed about [1]) that they no longer consider
it in the public interest to require CW proficiency for an
HF license. They are proposing to remove the CW requirement
entirely.

In its filings, the ARRL has proposed retaining the existing 5 WPM
requirement for Amateur Extra. The FCC's response adds up to "No.
Not justified. No CW requirement at all."

My understanding is that the ARRL's comments received from their
membership, and the comments received directly by the FCC in response
to the various petitions, are pretty consistent. Only a small
percentage of the people who have commented, feel as you do. Most
commenters either want to eliminate the CW requirement entirely (as
many other countries have done), or eliminate it for General and
retain it for Extra.

What you propose is also unlikely to happen because the FCC and ARRL
both remember what happened the last time they tried tightening the
rules and raising the requirements and trying to force people to
upgrade. My understanding (from reading - I wasn't licensed back
then) is that the Powers That Be concluded that this sort of incentive
licensing pressure created more resentment, and did more damage to the
health of the amateur radio community, than whatever benefits came
from it justified.

I've read statements from the FCC, over the past few years, to the
effect that they're just not interested in taking operating privileges
away from anyone.

Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.

Once again, I think that the number of licensees that the Amateur
Radio Service would lose (or would never get in the first place, once
people learned of the non-renewable status) would outweigh the
possible advantage of this approach (giving licensees more of an
inducement to increase their level of knowledge, and upgrade).

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

(Dave Platt) wrote in
:

In article . net,
Slow Code wrote:

Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:

Meta-comment: I think that if all of the ideas you propose were
actually enacted into regulation, and then ten years were go by, the
United States Amateur Radio Service would be unlikely to have more
than 1/4 of the number of licencees that it has today.

That's great if you want to create a "private club" for a few years
after that.

However, it's lousy if you want there to actually *be* an Amateur
Radio Service twenty or thirty years from now. With so few licensees
and as little activity as I think there'd be after such a decimation,
the odds are good that a lot of the U.S. amateur radio bands would be
"re-purposed" for other spectrum users.

No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.

Unlikely to pass, due to the cost and bureaucratic overhead.

I'd guess that at least a third of current licensees coming up for
renewal would decide not to bother, and let their licenses lapse (and
that's in addition to the rate of non-renewal which takes place today).

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

I'd have no real objection to this. Dunno if it's a good idea or a
bad idea.

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

This will never happen, for two major reasons:

[1] CW is no longer an international treaty requirement AT ALL.
The results of the WARC conferences made it clear that the
international community considers CW a useful mode, and a big
part of amateur tradition, but that it's no longer in sufficient
use in military/commercial applications to justify making it
a legal requirement for amateur HF licensing.

[2] The FCC has made it quite clear (in their responses to the
numerous petitions filed about [1]) that they no longer consider
it in the public interest to require CW proficiency for an
HF license. They are proposing to remove the CW requirement
entirely.

In its filings, the ARRL has proposed retaining the existing 5 WPM
requirement for Amateur Extra. The FCC's response adds up to "No.
Not justified. No CW requirement at all."

My understanding is that the ARRL's comments received from their
membership, and the comments received directly by the FCC in response
to the various petitions, are pretty consistent. Only a small
percentage of the people who have commented, feel as you do. Most
commenters either want to eliminate the CW requirement entirely (as
many other countries have done), or eliminate it for General and
retain it for Extra.

What you propose is also unlikely to happen because the FCC and ARRL
both remember what happened the last time they tried tightening the
rules and raising the requirements and trying to force people to
upgrade. My understanding (from reading - I wasn't licensed back
then) is that the Powers That Be concluded that this sort of incentive
licensing pressure created more resentment, and did more damage to the
health of the amateur radio community, than whatever benefits came
from it justified.

I've read statements from the FCC, over the past few years, to the
effect that they're just not interested in taking operating privileges
away from anyone.

Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.

Once again, I think that the number of licensees that the Amateur
Radio Service would lose (or would never get in the first place, once
people learned of the non-renewable status) would outweigh the
possible advantage of this approach (giving licensees more of an
inducement to increase their level of knowledge, and upgrade).



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

sc

On 2006-05-25, Slow Code wrote:


to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

I don't think that's entirely true. I'm working for my license.
Learning code, radio and antenna theory, SMT, and every other thing I
can think of. Got an ARRL Handbook ('91), a cheapo hand key, and a G.
West test book. Do I think code should be required? Yes. IMO,
knowing what I'm doing is what being a ham is all about. Knowing code
is part of that. In fact, with the possible spread of BPL, CW may
again become the only way to punch through. If I just wanted to press
a button and yap, I'd buy a CB or a cellphone.

nb

Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write
sc

assraped by an_old_friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write

Oh, the irony!

Markie Morgan, kb9rqz, proves his illiteracy when he slobbered
in Message-ID: .com:
"Icertainly can so I am not ileiterate"