"Brian" wrote ...

[Arnie], does REVISED and REASONABLE mean "reduced technical material" to
you? I guess if we asked for UNREASONABLE exams, that would make you
happier? Probably not, but your intention is restore an UNREVISED amateur
service, which you aren't going to get. You did not, but chimed in when
(see subject header) other PCTA were suggesting "No Test International." I
read it in its entirety then stated that "Exams that "Rationally and
Directly relate to priveleges" could be quite difficult..." If I didn't mean
that, why would I state it? You're welcome to repost it if you think I
changed the context. Arnie, it means an exam level of difficulty
commensurate with priveleges, not punitive exams for the pleasure of those
who want Morse testing.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

First, I accept your premise that you were not talking about me saying that
NCI wanted to end testing. And, yes, revised and reasonable mean reduced
standards to me. Like most codewords, when asked about them, they (NCI) can
put whatever interpretation (spin) they want on them. How convenient. As
to the Morse testing theory of yours. They don't state "Morse Testing"
because they are speaking of the "written" exams. Look at their NPRM reply
comments in that particular section and you will see this.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message


a whole bunch of snippage to trim this one up


Whether or not the Morse Code is an anachronism, whether or not it
should or should not be tested for, the elimination of the Morse code
test *is* a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed for a amateur
radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly.


The problem with your analysis is that you are attempting to
apply some mystical "amount of knowledge" criteria which
is NOT what licensing is about. Certainly, as a separate
knowledge base, the end of morse testing reduces one speciifc
piece of knowledge and testing. BUT, that is all it does.

Nope, just stating the obvious. No mysticism either.


Those responsible for such a reduction in knowledge needed for a
license, regardless of their reasons, now find themselves in league with
those who propose even less knowledge needed for that ticket. Politics
makes for strange bedfellows.


FALSE - As Jim will attest, I have been an advocate of better written
testing for a long time. Working to eliminate an
unneeded (IMHO...but shared by WRC) requirement does not
automatically put me or anyone else inleague with those that have
a desire to lower or eliminate written tests.

No one is doubting your personal convictions, Bill. Related example:
Those who oppose elimination of smoking in public places because of
personal "rights" issues, and those who oppose it because they want to
smoke in public are on the same side of the fence.


I understand that Carl and Bill do not support lessening of the
knowledge needed. But that does not really matter.

Sure it matters. Our opinions are as valued as ayone else
in the dialog.

Yes they are. Nice out of context quote there too! Clip there and it
means one thing, put it next to the sentence it was suposed to be in,
and it means something else entirely.

Those who want the
tests to consist of nothing but sending in an application (if that)
**applaud their efforts** That is another thing that is pretty hard to

deny.

You deny that people who want the tests reduced or even eliminated
don't think it is a good thing that the Morse code test is being
eliminated?


PLEASE tell us who the "just send in an application"
advocates are? I haven't seen any semblence of support
for that stand anywhere.

Well, I haven't taken a poll or collected names, but I've read enough
from people who think that the tests are too hard now. If I get the
gumption, I could google them out.

Please do, since I've been in this newsgroup since day 1 and
can't recall even handful.

Let's put it this way: Those who do not believe that the tests should
be radically simplified or eliminated, but believed the Morse code
requirement should have been eliminated may some day find themselves on
the losing end of the proposition, just as those who support Morse code
testing have lost the battle at this time.

Agreed, but it'll be a long wait to see if that pans out (IMHO).

I remember when you had to have a license to use CB.

So? CB, even then, had NO testing to get that license.

And now there is not even that....

Even what? There NEVER was any CB testing. The license
was nothing but an administrative excersize.

Look, I seriously doubt that there will ever come a time when there is
no test at all. We would probably lose the spectrum allotment before
that happens. That is just some slippery slope stuff.


But I have NO doubt whatsoever that there will be pressure to simplify
and reduce the difficulty of the testing process. Its all conjecture, so
we'll just have to wait and see.

Fair enough, but you know my position on lowering written
testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for
over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm,
but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing
interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering
colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved
in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the
WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US
position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other
administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that?

I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will
bring Amateur Radio.

Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but
the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone
really interested would do that.


I have reported that, in my over 32 years in the RF communications
business, I have worked with MANY very competent engineers who
would be interested in ham radio, but can't/won't be bothered with
wasting their time jumping through a silly Morse code "hoop."

Some have become hams since they could get meaningful HF privs
for "only" 5 wpm ... I'm sure that more will once they can do the
same without having to waste their time on even 5 wpm ... these
are folks that could pass a technical test well beyond the Extra.
Do you doubt that, even without Morse proficiency, they could/would
make good hams and could contribute to the service?

I dunno. I doubt it though. I wonder if a person who doesn't want to
jump through hoops is going to do much of anything that he/she doesn't
want to do.


The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ...

administrations

are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with

surprising

rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the

speed

with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code

hams

seems surprising to us ...)

These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to

live

with them.


Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one
doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it.


I'm not saying you have to *like* it ... just that your disapproval of
the facts won't change them and suggesting that you stop "crying over
spilled milk." :-)


Umm, Carl.... you are here! You have have achieved your goal, at least
will be very soon. I'm going to have to assume the reason is to engage
in a little gloating? So you're getting what you want on all counts. You
really wouldn't have to hear all us PCTA's crying if you didn't want to.

In other words, if you want to discuss it, we're here. Lessay we all do
what you want, and "just live with it". I guess that means we're
supposed to shut up. Then you wouldn't have the fun of discussing it
with us, or even telling us to "just live with it".

I don't think you would like that very much..

- Mike KB3EIA -

Arnie Macy wrote:
"JJ" wrote ...

You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just
plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have
to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get
SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by
using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is.
__________________________________________________ _____________________

I have to presume by your comment, JJ that you indeed know semaphore.
Otherwise, you look stupid when you chastise them for a skill you don't
possess. And, of course -- I'm sure it's just plain LAZINESS on your part.
What else could it be?

No, I don't know semaphore, and I don't tout it as being some
ancient mode of communication that will save the world either.

"Guessing" wrote in
news:QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01:


Someone squawked
As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told
me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is
abolished might be another matter.

Nonsense and a big copout

It happens to be the truth, whether you like it or not


If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests
Want a driver license -- take a test
Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a
professional test
Want insurance -- take a physical exam
Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test
Want to advance in the Military -- take the test
Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test
Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests
Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one
et al tests
Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test

Code won't be included in that for much longer. I assume that since you
just say 'take the test' about everything, that you must have no problem
with that. I certainly don't!

Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought
to be totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!!

Simple as that.


You live in a 'black and white' world, don't you?

Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just
wasn't serious about it.


An unsupported assertion, and untrue

If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other
college grad ???


Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated

Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ??

Yes, I did (although I did code eventually)

Didn't think so !!

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


Fred Maia, W5YI, was quoted as saying something along that line WRT the
Tech test ... but Fred is just *one* of the Directors of NCI, and I can
state that
his view in that regard is NOT NCI policy and is not shared by me or the
rest of the NCI board. (IIRC, Fred also said he'd like to make the Extra
test
more rigorous ...)

Having known Fred Maia personally in the past, I would not put
much stock in anything he has to say.

Mike Coslo wrote in
:



Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in :


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed
for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm,
but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing
interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering
colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in
this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC
prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position,
etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and
regional groups. What's so funny about that?

I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they
will
bring Amateur Radio.

Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham
radio, but
the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone
really interested would do that.



As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told
me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is
abolished might be another matter.

You're right about that last part. Kind of like the excuses that
people
make for lots of things.

Didya ever notice people tend to be kind of indirect in their
excuses?

- Mike KB3EIA -



Well, it's certainly possible that it was their excuse to make me go away
and quit bothering them!

All the same, these are people who could pass the Extra theory without too
much effort, so once there is no longer a code test we probably _will_ see
some of them on the air.

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:


(snip) Whether or not the Morse Code is an
anachronism, whether or not it should or
should not be tested for, the elimination of
the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the
amount of knowledge needed for a amateur
radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly.



Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at
a
piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that
doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio.
Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test?

One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it.

- Mike KB3EIA -




But not vice versa

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Bill:

Hmmm -- impressive. I wish I could say the same about Nancy Kott.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Who is Nancy Kott? My memory thinks it is
someone involved with FISTS?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Yes, that's right. She's involved in the "non-political" CW Operator Awards
Program for Retired Geezer Brass Bashers known as FISTS. She is, in
fact, the North American "Secretary" of that organization. She is also the
new editor of WorldRadio. At least she has found something useful to do.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Mike Coslo wrote:


eschew obtuseness

And if you can't eschew it, then chew on it!