"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote ...

Bill, welp, I brought out the fine-toothed comb and swept it through the
citation. Nowhere did I pick up the words "reduced technical material" or
anything remotely like it. Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to
priveleges" could be quite difficult, making some of these long-time hams
glad that retesting isn't required every 10 years. It is a PCTA ploy that
they continue to cry for no exams. Since we won't let them take their ball
and go home, they want to damage the ARS for all. They're tring to scuttle
the ship rather than let it fall into unworthy hands.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

"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."

Arenie, 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.

First, please show me where I said that NCI wants to END testing.

You did not, but chimed in when (see subject header) other PCTA were
suggesting "No Test International."

You can't
because I never said it.

See above. Become enlightened.

Second, please explain what "revised" and
"reasonable" mean within the context of the above quote from NCI? (that you
conveniently snipped from my answer)

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.

Does it mean that NCI wants to make
the test MORE difficult? Even a blind man could see where this is going.

Arnie -

Arnie, it means an exam level of difficulty commensurate with
priveleges, not punitive exams for the pleasure of those who want
Morse testing.

Brian

On 11 Jul 2003 09:55:05 -0700, Brian wrote:

This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that?

(a) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years knows that from public
statements made by top brass (especially Reed Hundt) about
cost-cutting.

(b) There was an internal policy memo circulated to staff talking
about the need to privatize as many functions as possible in order
to cut agency spending. This was not made public and is not
available under FOIA because it dealt strictly with internal
management issues. I did not retain a copy of same (because to do
so would have been illegal).

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:29:41 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

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.

In the spirit of "privitization", why don't you and some
like-dedicated folks set up a table at some place and run code
tests, granting an appropriate certificate for whatever speed the
passer-by ham copies.

Oh, I'm sorry - the "anti-code-test" ARRL has already done it. It's
called the Code Proficiency Award, instead of the CSRC or whatever
the VEs used to call theirs.

I'll have to find my certificate somewhere so I can put a few
higher-speed stickers on it when the time comes.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Life Member

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Penny Traytion" wrote ...

No Test International.

__________________________________________________ ________

Dang it, Penny. You took my answer. ;-)

Arnie -
KT4ST

Member of "Know Code" International

Dang it!

It would appear that Arnie -almost- authored "No Test International,"
as the next step for NCI, but Penetration stole his answer.

But he was thinking it. He says so above. He denies it elsewhere.

bb

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
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

Agreed. Brian

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

Well Arnie, nice of you to take my text out of context. You try to imply
by my stating the obvious, that I am saying we should end tests and that
is
BUNK. The point I was making was simply that even a multiple choice test
is
sufficient a barrier to keep 99% of the population from even considering
becoming a ham... that said, the statement does not then lead to any
position or support by me of ending written testing.

__________________________________________________ _________________________

"Not so fast there, Brian. NCI has been on the record as saying that the
tests should be made less technical. Not a far leap at all to presume
they
will try and "dumb" them down even more." - Arnie (7-8-2003)

Arnie ... your statement is JUST PLAIN FALSE. NCI has NEVER said
any such thing.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Phil Kane wrote:

On 11 Jul 2003 05:30:06 -0700, Brian wrote:

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.

Ah, effendi, you are starting to understand.

-

Verily, I truly doubt it.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 11 Jul 2003 05:30:06 -0700, Brian wrote:

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.

Ah, effendi, you are starting to understand.

That would be a milestone.

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 -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

Arnie ... your statement is JUST PLAIN FALSE. NCI has NEVER said any such
thing.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

And the moon is made of cheese, Carl. I suppose I could go back five years
and research everything NCI Directors have said on the NG, but I just
suspect that you would say I misunderstood those statements. I recall quite
a few remarks by NCI Directors saying that the entry level tests were too
technical and that revisions were in order. Of course, NCI was never in
favor of removing the digital/CW sub bands either, right?

Arnie -