IN A QUOTE FROM ANOTHER THREAD...

Message 65 in thread
From: N2EY )
Subject: The 14 Petitions

View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: 2003-11-27 05:58:53 PST

In article ,

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations,
your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not
necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this
point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.
If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such
laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is
a valid
way of evaluating the validity of an assertion.

It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and
if the
result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false.

So far the only people I see "making fun" of Jim Miccolis are
those who cannot adequately argue the topic being debated, Hans.

That says it all right there, Steve. Ridicule the messenger rather
than deal
with the message.

There ARE those who make an arguement that the Amateur Radio
license should be nothing more than an expensive permit. It's been
archived here, Hans, and remains an "on-the-fringe" concept, but
worse
ideas have made it into law.

Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just
like other
requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses,
tests
conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience
requirements,
etc.

END OF QUOTE...

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become producetive hams". UNQUOTE

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

We'd be better off letting Michael Jackson be their sand lot
supervisor! ! !

While I am a big proponent of CLOSING the question pools and
thereby requiring potential licensees to actually LEARN something,
including regulations, even our present system of open pools and rote
memorization will ingrain SOME understanding of the most of the basic
rules of the service!

Of course I can't help but believe this is another W5YI
initiative to help perpetuate his "publishing" business, especially
since it will soon lose part of it's subject matter (code tapes).

One more new license would be yet another "text" he could get
around to selling.

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.

73

Steve, K4YZ