"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:15:37 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

What of those who simply aren't smart enough to pass a test? are they
not human and have rights?

Nobody has a "right" to transmit radio signals. See the
International Radio Regulations and Section 301 of the US
Communications Act.

As for mode specific questions, they have no business asking me about
modes of operation that I am not interested in.

"They" -the 800 pound gorilla - have every business......

Let the good times roll, baby...... ggg
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

How many bannas will it to make the gorilla happy? :-)

Larry

"Brian" wrote ...

I have the quote from the NCI reply comments on restructuring where they say
that the exams should be more geared to what ops actually do (IOW, more
operating questions, less technical) -- I have to locate it, but will post
it before I go to bed -- Just hold yer horses thar partner.

Arnie -
KT4ST

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Bill:

I didn't know that, but it sounds like "blather" to me!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation
and involved both during and before the WRC.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

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

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dan:

The problem with that is, if Carl Stevenson's brain were composed of
Semtex, he couldn't blow his nose!

73 de Larry, K3LT

True, voluntary motor skills wouldn't be supported by the substitution
of semtex for brain matter.

bb

True. Moreover, if Carl's brain were composed of Semtex, I should hope
that he would not want to blow this nose!

In any event, I like Carl, so I'm glad that his brain is just the way it is!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Brian wrote ...

Arnie, citation please. It is the disgruntled PCTA that have advocated a
"No Test International" concept.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"review the privileges afforded to each license class and make certain that
all test
requirements for each license class RATIONALLY and DIRECTLY RELATE to the
privileges the
licensee receives by virtue of passing the test."

"In the interest of continuity with the present licensing structure, study
guides, and testing materials, NCI again recommends that the three license
classes be called "Technician," "General," and "Extra." This will permit a
practical combination of existing study guides and testing materials to be
used until such time as such materials are REVISED and will result in
REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license contemplated in these
comments."

(my emphasis
added)____________________________________________ __________________________
_______

First, I was never a PCTA ... and you know that. But that aside, above are
the quotes from the reply comments of NCI to the NPRM. Of course, they
don't come out and directly say it, but it is clear where they are going
with this. Now, add to that, the comment from an NCI Director -- "Just
having a test...any test, serves as a barrier to millions of people. That
an actual learning effort is required (even if it is straight memorization)
will continue to act as a barrier for 99% or more of the population." - Bill
Sohl, NCI Director, 02/01/97 on this NG.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Bill:

I didn't know that, but it sounds like "blather" to me!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation
and involved both during and before the WRC.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

Well, if fair is fair, and the value of morse code is what it has been
reported to be in this newsgroup and others, then it should be no problem
eh?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
I still think that if morse code is so important for the hams to have to
know how to do, then all others utlizing public service and business
band
frequencies should have to know it as well such as law enforcement,
fire,
ems, governmental entities, transportation frequencies etc. Especially
the
emergency service people, as if there were ever a case where they may be
caught in a position where morse code may be useful, I don't know what
would
be. Can you imagine if they used it for at least a secondary level of
communications if not a primary one?? People in scannerland would have
to
learn morse code as well to figure out what the hell is being sent!

ALL-CODE INTL.!!!!!!!!



Whoaaa there, Ryan! You're getting spun up here!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message t...
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?


Welp, since the name of the operation is No Code Test *International*
their work is far from done. Seems like code tests will continue in a
number of countries, Russia, Germany, China, the Arab states, etc. NCI
will have to schmooze the likes of Putin (Col, ret. KGB), Jiang and
the lop-yer-head-off Arab sweethearts before they can claim mission
complete. Squiggy gets Yemen, Sohl gets Mongolia for openers. Oughta
be interesting.

w3rv

What do I get?

Somalia. This time do it right when you ask for permission.

Please cite the manual giving explicit directions for gaining
permission to operate amateur radio in a country w/o a government, and
now without an occupying military force that has jurisdiction over my
person.

Best of luck, bb

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.


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....

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

Well Arnie, nice of you to take my text out of context.


Don't you Just HATE it when that happens, Bill!



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

And someone else said:

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


- Mike KB3EIA -