wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 10, 11:29 am, "Dean M" wrote:

How's that report on me going. Should be at least 500 words double
spaced

The report was completed back when I said I made it.

I so doubt that. You're all bluster like your trainer



Do you think I have super-human powers from the planet Krypton to have
you picked up with a single phone call just on my say so???

I guess you answered that

Actually I see you as a Bizzaro planet inhabitant



"Dialing...." Hi, hi! What a pair of idiots you are.

Bry..you are the tool's tool

Dean
Anchors Away

Fair wind and following seas and all that, embarassing Son of DOS

And here I thought you were so morally against name calling??!! Daughter of
Satan..indeed

What a trained little monkey you really are. Acn you do any other tricks
there Bry??

On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
whoe ever it was lied about the hams of in area i n number

How, exactly?

A quick search of Chassel, MI shows 19 licensed amateurs, 1 of which you
live with.

A quick search of one Jeff Hermann's PO Box used to show what?

C'mon Mad Dog Mike, you of all people should know that you don't have
to reside in Chassel, MI to be a VE there.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 10, 1:03 pm, "Dean M" wrote:

Just remember Bry Lithium is not just for batteries. Try it, you might
like it-

It makes a pretty good bearing grease. I like it.

Mark likes it, too. He finds it much better than K-Y.

On Mar 10, 1:43 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Mar 10, 12:04 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 9, 7:32 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message

You're shacked up with one of them, but in any case he's only a
Technician and ineligible to test you anyway.

Now we get to the root of the matter. Unless the rules have changed,
a
VE
(with the exception of Extras) must have a license class higher than
the
exams they administer. Thus the General class licensee can only
administer
Tech class exams. To get above Tech, he would most likely have to
drive
somewhere else.

The Advanced and Extras can administer Tech & General Exams. The
Extras
can
administer Tech, General, and Extra exams. If your data is correct on
the
number of licensees in the area, they could NOT have tested him for
General
unless there were also some Advanced class licensees around who were
VEs.
So it would seem that he asked for the impossible. No wonder they
would
not
schedule an exam for him.

Dee, N8UZE-

Dee, why do you even validate Robesin's remarks with a legitimate
reply?

He made an error that needed correcting (i.e. what tests Generals could
give).

He made other errors and accusations, i.e., "You're shacked up with
one of them, but in any case he's only a
Technician and ineligible to test you anyway."

Why did you legitimize his inuendo and accusations with your remarks?

Otherwise some readers might have ended up acting on this incorrect
information and been disappointed.

Dee, N8UZE-

Dee, how would we have "acted" on incorrect information? which
readers?

There is always the potential for that. Some General who reads this group
might have thought he could give General tests. The paperwork would have
bounced and then there would be a very irate Technician. Such would be
grossly unfair to the that applicant.

So do you think all hams are stupid, or just the ones that read RRAP?

Or a Technician might have been led to believe that a General could
administer the General test and become hostile when the General VE refused.

All this hostility! Where does it come from?

In today's world, these things can even lead to violence.

Dee, N8UZE

That's when you call in the RF Commandos.

On Mar 10, 12:55 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:32:34 -0500, "Dee Flint"

wrote:

"K4YZ" wrote in message
roups.com...
Now we get to the root of the matter. Unless the rules have changed, a VE
(with the exception of Extras) must have a license class higher than the
exams they administer. Thus the General class licensee can only administer
Tech class exams. To get above Tech, he would most likely have to drive
somewhere else.

the root of that matter is that steve is skewing the facts and lying
about the nu mber of ham in the this areahttp://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Lets give Robesin the benefit of the doubt.

There might be plenty of local hams using Jeff Hermann's PO Box in
Hawaii.

I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data.

Dee, N8UZE

So what do you know of Mark's wife?

BTW if you would since she does not read my posts do tell her that she
Dee is onw my wife list of folks she will not speak on on air or qsl
although I still would but only in slam bang thank you for the contact
sort of way

Oh, the laughter. I'll bet THAT will really upset Dee.

On Mar 10, 2:02 pm, "
wrote:

I was pleased with my local VE team's performance (all four,
not just three) and congratulated them after the testing was
over. [I observed them while they were observing me and the
applicant group]

They were ARRL VEs, weren't they?

However, that is not extendable to "all" VEs
nor all those involved in this newsgroup.

Why not?

Most of the statements
in this thread about VEs are just using it as a springboard to
talk trash to other old "enemies." :-(

Considering the number of statements you make to
rrap, Len, it seems you are projecting your motivations on others.

In an extreme example, amateur radio station N2EY has to
bring up the 1998 ARRLweb story of two FOUR-YEAR-OLDS
who "passed" a Technician and Novice class written exam
(respectively) as well as the required low-rate morse code
test. An accompanying picture in the web story shows one
of the VEs, of kindly grandfatherly mien, with arms around
both of them. Obvious one-hankie kind of "feel-good" story
that is no stranger to journalistic media everywhere.

You left out the most important parts of that
story, Len.

First off, the 4-1/2-year-olds in question were from families composed
almost entirely of radio amateurs, and were part of a an educational
environment that included amateur radio as an integral part of the
curriculum. Both could read and write well above age level.

Second, the written tests they passed were the old Novice and Tech
elements.

Third, there has never been any objective evidence presented that the
VE session in question was compromised in any way.

Fourth, your response to that story was to propose, in Reply Comments
to FCC, that there be a new mandatory age requirement of *14* years
for any class of amateur radio license.

Fifth, you have not been able to produce a single example of problems
to the US Amateur Radio Service caused by a lack of an age
requirement. Amateurs have been licensed by the US Government since
1912, yet in all those 85 years you cannot name even one actual
problem caused by the licensing of people under the age of 14. Not
one.

Four year olds capable of responsible cognition of the
written-English test material?

Irrelevant, Len. "Responsible cognition" is not a requirement of the
license test.

Ask any working teacher
of K to 3 classes if any of their students have either
cognition or sense of responsibility about such test
material. The end result will be an almost unamous
NO, the won't. I've asked three that I know, plus one
who was then a grade 4 teacher but later moved up to
middle-school level when I had met him.

Doesn't matter.

The FCC has been using multiple-choice written
exams for all amateur written elements for more
than 40 years. The question pools have been
publicly available for more than 20 years.

FCC does not require that a prospective amateur demonstrate
understanding of the material, nor "cognition", nor a sense of
responsibility. Nor is it necessary to get 100% correct on the test,
or even 80%.

All FCC requires is that the prospective amateur get at least the
required number of questions correct on the written test, without
cheating. Nothing more. Doesn't matter to FCC if the prospective ham
has a Ph.D in EE and a stack of patents, or is in the first grade.
Doesn't matter to FCC if the prospective ham can explain each question
and answer in exquisite detail, with exact formulas and calculations,
or if the correct answer came from random guessing, or rote
memorization.

All that matters to FCC is that the prospective amateur got at least
the minimum required number of correct answers, without cheating.

When you allegedly asked those teachers, did you
happen to mention that:

1) The test materials were available for study, so the children would
have seen them before the test?

2) The questions were multiple choice, one out of four?

3) That as long as there was no cheating, any method of getting the
right answer was OK?

4) That a passing grade was 74%, regardless of how much was actually
understood?

I don't think so.

What is
rather obvious is that there was some "mentoring"
during the actual test, not allowed nowadays (nor in
1998 according to all the law-abiding whosis in here).

No, that's not obvious at all. You are claiming that the VE session
was compromised. That's a serious charge.

You were not there, Len, and you don't know any of the people
involved.

I have seen bright three-year-olds reading well above their age level.
Whether they understood what they read is besides the point.

Ah, but the least little hint of "fraud" involved evoked a
storm of PROTEST from the Believers of the League,
angry denunciations of anyone who would DARE say
nasty of their beloved ARRL.

Claims of fraud without any objective evidence deserve to be denounced
as false.

I wonder if the VEs who handled your testing knew that you accused
other VEs of fraud back in 2002?
Or that you accused the ARRL VEC of hypocrisy at the same time?

All without any evidence at all.

On an almost constant irregular basis, amateur station
N2EY has to bring this tidbit out in the open...and has
for 8 years. It gets inserted into threads which don't
involve VEs or testing as the general subject. Some in
here burn and burn inside for the longest time...perhaps
of unrequited spite that must have retribution.

The only spite is *yours*, Len.


Let's take a realistic look at Volunteer Examiners. Are all
VEs "saints?" No. They are human beings. Are they
"exceptional" human beings? Perhaps, but exceptional in
that they volunteer their time to proctor testing. Volunteerism
happens in MANY different human endeavors, not just
amateur radio. Do VEs need exceptional training to perform
their tasks? No. All it requires is attention to paperwork,
using the correct template to score test sheets, filling out
the correct blanks on forms, keeping the test papers for an
individual in order, double-checking each (in a team) other's
work, making sure a test session's paper packet gets sent
quickly to a VEC center for final processing (for big VECs)
or direct to the FCC (for small VECs). Part of a VE team's
task is to simply observe applicants, make sure they do not
cheat, make sure they behave during a session, check their
identity by other documents.

They must also hold the required class of amateur radio license.

Is the example of one VE team applicable to the entire VEC?
No.

Yet you accuse some VEs of fraud and hypocrisy.

Here are links to the actual postings:

Len's reply comments - 16 pages page 13 of 16

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6006041 560

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3


ARRL Letter:

http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/98/980320/

Hans pointer:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

http://tinyurl.com/y2er8x



Len's rejoinder:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr

Len accusing fraud:


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en





Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 10, 1:40 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:

[snip]


So what do you know of Mark's wife?


I've never commented on Mark's wife and have no interest in the subject.

Dee, N8UZE

"Fat Cassie" anon@anon wrote in message
news


I do not legitimize such. My objective was to deal with the data.

Dee, N8UZE

So what do you know of Mark's wife?

BTW if you would since she does not read my posts do tell her that she
Dee is onw my wife list of folks she will not speak on on air or qsl
although I still would but only in slam bang thank you for the contact
sort of way

Oh, the laughter. I'll bet THAT will really upset Dee.



Doesn't matter to me. Although it seems rather strange since I have said
nothing about his wife and very little about him.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 10, 4:22 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
whoe ever it was lied about the hams of in area i n number

How, exactly?

A quick search of Chassel, MI shows 19 licensed amateurs, 1 of which you
live with.

A quick search of one Jeff Hermann's PO Box used to show what?

C'mon Mad Dog Mike, you of all people should know that you don't have
to reside in Chassel, MI to be a VE there.

And that has what to do with the VE's that live in the area? I guess Mark
and you "expect" some of us to drive long distances just to please Mark? I
don't think so.