"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Once again, it would be irresponsible for the NCI Board of Directors to
ignore the wishes of the vast majority of our membership in favor of
honoring Hans' wishes - though we certainly did listen to and consider
his
views, and some of the NCI Directors even had lengthily e-mail
discussions
with him.


Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

I've tried that already, Jim. They don't like thought experiments very
much!

Especially one as silly as that just suggested by Jim.

It is interesting that NCI folks avoid such a simple, direct question.

Me thinks Jim has too much idle time on his hands :-)

It took only a few seconds to write that post. Far more has been spent
by NCI folks trying to justify their support of free upgrades for
Techs after at least one said they would *never* support reductions in
the written requirements.

Hans, K0HB has described the situation plainly and clearly.

As for my thought-experiment being "silly" - that's exactly what many
of us were told about possible reductions in written test standards.

Here's another thought-experiment:

Suppose that, in order to break the logjam, someone proposes that the
lower 15-20% of each MF/HF ham band be made manual-CW-only. And a 5
wpm code test would be required to use those segments.

And suppose the majority of NCI members said "Fine! The code folks
will have their protected spots and the rest of us won't have to deal
with code unless we want to, and we can disband NCI and move on."

What would NCI's leadership do?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK