There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual
"I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being
bantied about?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual
"I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being
bantied about?

73

Steve, K4YZ


You know the group so well, Steve!

73/88, Kim W5TIT

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

For example, even before 1991 the Tech was essentially the "entry
level" license - which was never the intent of that license class.
Because the
privileges focus so much on VHF/UHF, the entry path for many new hams
shifted from HF to VHF/UHF. And to many new hams, ham radio became
more
locally-oriented than regionally-, nationally- or
internationally-oriented.

Also, since homebrewing VHF/UHF gear can be more difficult than HF
gear, even more newcomers went with manufactured equipment from Day 1
rather than kit of homebrew gear.

If the newcomer passes Element 1, all he/she gets in additional privs
is a few tiny CW-only slices of three HF ham band, plus some 10 meter
SSB and CW. While lots of great stuff can be done with a simple setup
on 10 when the band is open, it becomes more like a VHF band when the
band isn't open.

On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane
stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff
that would serve a newcomer better.

The retooling of the old Novice license is an attempt to equalize
HF-VHF-UHF in the entry-level license. And that's a good idea, I
think.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire
BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive?

I've already let the BoD know what I think of their proposal. Plus
some ideas of my own. In fact, I did that before the BoD meeeting.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

For example, even before 1991 the Tech was essentially the "entry
level" license - which was never the intent of that license class.

Nope. The Novice was the entry level license prior to 1991.

Because the
privileges focus so much on VHF/UHF, the entry path for many new hams
shifted from HF to VHF/UHF.

Post 1991.

And to many new hams, ham radio became
more
locally-oriented than regionally-, nationally- or
internationally-oriented.

Heaven forbid an entry level license that's internationally-oriented!

It's been said that Advanced licensees have a "problem" where DX
chasing is concerned.

Well you people have done such a fantastic job of destroying the hobby, I
say it's time to fire up NTI (No Test International) and just finish it off.

Face it, you people killed Ham Radio, it's over.

Ham Radio, RIP

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

Other than hurl epithets and insults, is anyone else going to do
anything remotely constructive? Or is this pretty much the usual
"I-ain't-gonna-do-nuttin-but-whine-like-a-pig" RRAP rhetoric being
bantied about?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"shephed" wrote in message ...

Well you people have...(SNIP)

Another anonymous sniper with more antagonistic, slanderous swill
to yet slop the trough with.

Be gone, Scumbag. We already have Lennie...We DON'T need you.

Steve, K4YZ

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

That they are trying to keep things moving from their
perspective, perhaps. But I don't think this requires a whole lot of
rethinking nor does it require any complex bandplanning.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

There's good stuff here, Jim, but I'm going to cut to the chase.

On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane
stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff
that would serve a newcomer better.

I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if
it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools
are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide",
the tests are relatively irrelevant.

Yes, some "learning" will occur just from reading the question
over and over, but to what legitimate application can THAT kind of
learning be applied?

Repeat after me: "Lopressor is a beta blocker administerd SIVP
for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR."

Got that? Now, WHAT is a beta blocker? What was the underlying
etiology of the hypertension or the atrial fibrillation that produced
the irregular ventricular response?

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire
BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why.

Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than
it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies
that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one
to open the flood gates of new licensees.

Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid
return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

Ditto.

Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent
most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling
breeze pass through the house.

73

Steve, K4YZ

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

"shephed" wrote in message
.. .

Well you people have...(SNIP)

Another anonymous sniper with more antagonistic, slanderous swill
to yet slop the trough with.

Be gone, Scumbag. We already have Lennie...We DON'T need you.

Gotta love the warmth and charm of the legal licensed USA amateur
extra frothing at the mouth! :-) :-) :-)

Must be a sixth definition in 97.1, following something about "unique
ability to enhance good will..." :-)

LHA / WMD

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...

There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

That they are trying to keep things moving from their
perspective, perhaps. But I don't think this requires a whole lot of
rethinking nor does it require any complex bandplanning.

I'm not sure what you mean, Steve.

The ARRL proposal focuses mostly on the entry-level license and the license
classes closed off to new issues. There's not a lot of bandplanning in it.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

There's good stuff here, Jim, but I'm going to cut to the chase.

OK

On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane
stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff
that would serve a newcomer better.

I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if
it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools
are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide",
the tests are relatively irrelevant.

And that's not going to change. Been that way for 20 years, and FCC isn't
going to take back the work that it now gets done for free by unpaid
volunteers.

So the *only* answer is to make the test pools so big that it's easier for 99%
of new hams to just learn the material than to word-associate and rote-memorize
their way to a passing grade. And, in my experience, most newcomers really want
to learn the material. YMMV.

Yes, some "learning" will occur just from reading the question
over and over, but to what legitimate application can THAT kind of
learning be applied?

Some questions are pure memorization, like the band edges and other regs.

Repeat after me: "Lopressor is a beta blocker administerd SIVP
for the control of hypertension and AFIB with IVR."

"Lopressor is a beta blocker administered SIVP for the control of hypertension
and AFIB with IVR."

Got it - sort of.

Got that? Now, WHAT is a beta blocker?

Some kind of drug. Has to do with the mechanisms that cause high blood pressure
and /or hear attacks. Administered intravenously.

What was the underlying
etiology of the hypertension or the atrial fibrillation that produced
the irregular ventricular response?

Something to do with too much beta. Whatever beta is in this context.

I figured out all that from context and a hazy layman's exposure to cardiac
medicine. Do I really understand it? Of course not!

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire
BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why.

Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than
it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies
that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one
to open the flood gates of new licensees.

I don't see that. What I do see is the FCC taking its time and letting everyone
propose all sorts of stuff, and comment on same. NPRM? Maybe some months down
the road. Actual rules changes? Don't hold your breath or you'll need more than
beta blockers ;-)

Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid
return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate.

That's because none of them address, or can address, the underlying problems
that limit growth in amateur radio.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

Ditto.

Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent
most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling
breeze pass through the house.

We've had 3 winter storms in the past 4 days. Last night was an ice storm
followed by several inches of new snow. Also lots of flu in this house despite
flu shots. Not pretty. See what you're missing?

Time to dig out.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
. com...

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...

There's a lot of negativism in this group about the ARRL proposal.

Also a lot of positivism.

That they are trying to keep things moving from their
perspective, perhaps. But I don't think this requires a whole lot of
rethinking nor does it require any complex bandplanning.

While not as verbose about it, I agree that this "proposal" was
poorly thought out and does not meet any "obvious" need within Amateur
Radio. It's a W5YI-ian like effort to create something new for the
sake of sales/membership.

I disagree! I think it has some good ideas and some bad ideas.

There's good stuff here, Jim, but I'm going to cut to the chase.

On top of all this, the Tech written (Element 2) is full of arcane
stuff like RF exposure calculations, which displaces more basic stuff
that would serve a newcomer better.

I don't think that much of what is "written" is pertinent even if
it were "written" in the next 2 hours. As long as the question pools
are open and the "newcomer" can pick up a verbatim "Q&A study guide",
the tests are relatively irrelevant.

Passing the General written in 1958 was not difficult
at all for anyone with a memory and who spent limited time studying
the AMECO study guide or ARRL study guide which only had
some 5/6 pages of study material for General.

Yes, some "learning" will occur just from reading the question
over and over, but to what legitimate application can THAT kind of
learning be applied?

The Q&As aren't going away. Better to focus effort on expanding the
Q&A pool for things like formiula calculations such that memorizing
the formula...not the answer is the better way to learn.

My "answer" is a letter to the ARRL suggesting that this was NOT
a wise idea and COULD have been made less of a surprise to the Amateur
Community by discussing it first. I'll "cc" that letter to my SM.

What about your Director and Vice Director - or better yet, the entire
BoD? And let 'em know exactly what's good and bad, and why.

Perhaps, Jim, but my take is that the FCC has expressed more than
it's fair share of frustration with the numerous licening strategies
that have been offered, all suggesting that "this one" will be the one
to open the flood gates of new licensees.

I don't think the FCC cares if there is or isn't a floodgate of
new hams. The FCC wants stability over the next decade or
longer. The ARRL proposal would do exactly that...once and for a
long time forward.

Each has produced a momentary road bump followed by a rapid
return to a steady-if-unimpressive growth rate.

If/when the proposal becomes an RM, it'll be comment time......

Ditto.

Me too.

Hope you're keeping warm Jim! It's embarrassing here...I spent
most of the evening with the back door open to let a cool drizzling
breeze pass through the house.

Six more inches of snow last night....ugh.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK