Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Zzzzzzz . . .

Poor old man...put you to sleep again, did we? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You've been putting folks to sleep here for quite sometime, Leonardo.
Reference any of your material beginning, "Fifty years ago I was..."

You've never worked REAL HF communications, old man. You pretend
you have playing with your HF radio in an AMATEUR band.

Let's go over a few basics for your benefit, Len.

1. HF amateur radio is REAL HF communications.

2. The newsgroup deals with amateur radio.

3. You aren't remotely involved in amateur radio.

Now go take a rest and when you wake up, do some number exercises.
Carefully go through the one that says "26 does NOT equal 1."
Not in patents, not in anything.

Did you ever figure out the one about 0 amateur radio licenses not
equaling 1 minute on the ham bands?

Dave K8MN

"N2EY" wrote:

Who is being excluded? The requirements are what
the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements
and the license is granted.


Jim, please read the thread before replying. Brian is arguing for stiffer
written tests and/or code to exclude those he doesn't like. My comments
addressed the concept of using excess requirements to exclude others.


Note that reducing the license requirements has
NOT brought on significantly more growth nor
attracted the "rocket scientists".


I didn't say it did, Jim. The 'rocket scientists' point was made to
address Brian's argument for stiffer requirements to keep "dumb-downed"
people out. My comments about growth had to do with what I suspect would
happen if Brian were successful in his efforts to exclude others with
changes in the requirements.


(snip) The purpose of tests is not to exclude
but to guarantee a certain minimum level of
knowledge. (snip)


Again, I didn't say the purpose was to exclude. Again, my comments had to
do with the changes Brian is seeking, not the existing requirements.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Brian Kelly" wrote:


Stand up and draw some lines in the sand. Do
a Harry Truman, "The buck stops here."



However, the buck doesn't stop here. Ham Radio belongs to the American
public. When we set out to exclude that public with unnecessary requirements
(excessively stiff written tests or even code), we're simply asking for
trouble.

You're right. I think that all should be issued Amateur radio licenses
at birth. The testing requirements should be changed to "Utilization
Encounters" that no longer have test questions, but rather
non-competitive non-graded sessions designed to enhance the self esteem
of the Amateur Radio operator. The different grading of the tickets
would no longer be based on knowledge, but on how good the licensee
feels about themselves.



Dang, Mike, you been doing consulting work at the FCC?

The important thing is how you feel about how I feel about that! Let's
be sure no one is left out, and all will be well. 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote:

Who is being excluded? The requirements are what
the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements
and the license is granted.


Jim, please read the thread before replying.

I did.

Brian is arguing for stiffer
written tests and/or code to exclude those he doesn't like.

That's not how I read it. It's about what every ham should know and be
tested on.

My comments
addressed the concept of using excess requirements to exclude others.

But who decides what requirements are excess? It all comes down to
opinion.

For example, I think every ham should at least know Ohm's Law for DC
circuits. Basic stuff like E = IR, resistors in series and parallel,
how many amps a 50 watt rig draws from a 12 volt source if its overall
efficiency is 50%, etc. Others would say that stuff is "too
technical", particularly for "entry level" licenses. And there are
plenty of hams who don't know that stuff. Is requiring Ohm's Law
knowledge exclusionary? Is it an excess requirement?

Note that reducing the license requirements has
NOT brought on significantly more growth nor
attracted the "rocket scientists".

I didn't say it did, Jim. The 'rocket scientists' point was made to
address Brian's argument for stiffer requirements to keep "dumb-downed"
people out. My comments about growth had to do with what I suspect would
happen if Brian were successful in his efforts to exclude others with
changes in the requirements.

Nobody know what would really happen because for the past 25+ years
the direction has been towards easing the test requirements. Dick Bash
started it.
None of the changes along the way was very big but the end result has
been dramatic. Particularly for the top license classes.

(snip) The purpose of tests is not to exclude
but to guarantee a certain minimum level of
knowledge. (snip)

Again, I didn't say the purpose was to exclude. Again, my comments had to
do with the changes Brian is seeking, not the existing requirements.

What bad things would happen if the tests were "beefed up",
particularly the written tests for the General and Extra?

Perhaps the idea of dropping the code test would get a lot more
acceptance if it were coupled to better written testing. But it's not
- in fact, the written testing keeps getting trimmed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

You're right. I think that all should be issued
Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing
requirements should be changed to "Utilization
Encounters" that no longer have test questions,
but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions
designed to enhance the self esteem of the
Amateur Radio operator. The different grading
of the tickets would no longer be based on
knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels
about themselves.


Well, responding in an equally sarcastic manner, you're perfectly free to
think that if you wish, Mike. However, I think we should have reasonable
requirements that are neither too simplistic nor too difficult. Those
requirements should address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio
without attempts to use them to unfairly exclude others. In my opinion, the
current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur
Radio, while the code test does not.


Dwight, it all depends on what you mean by
unnecessary.


Necessary and reasonable, both words used throughout my comments, are
pretty much self-explanatory. If that doesn't satisfy you, read the
paragraph I wrote above.


CB'ers are on the air on HF. Many run power, illegal
or not. And no one has taken a test to do that.

This proves that * you don't need any test at all* to
successfully run a station at HF frequencies.


But can one do so safely and in compliance with the rules and regulations?
Of course not. And that is why the actions of that CB'er is illegal. And it
is also why that example is not applicable to ham radio.


And reasonable requirements can be anything from a
difficult test to no test at all. just depends on
who is doing the reasoning.


The FCC is doing the reasoning. We're simply agreeing or disagreeing with
that reasoning.


The ARS can be what we make of it. All is arbitrary,
and we have to start with an idea of how adroit we
want the typical member to be and go from there. From
EE to CB.


In that case, why stop with just excluding "dumbed down" people. There is
just as many reasons to write rules to exclude the poor. 'Those people'
can't buy good radios and the cheap radios owned by 'those people' can cause
problems on the ham frequencies. Clearly, we should write rules to get rid
of anyone who earns less than $50k. When you start down the path of
intentionally excluding others, it has the tendency to go much further then
you ever intended.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Brian Kelly" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

However, the buck doesn't stop here. Ham Radio
belongs to the American public.

Wrong. The whole planet owns the RF spectrum and
the FCC is charged with doling out spectrum space
to U.S. users of the that space in the public
interest as it sees fit. Getting user access to
the spectrum is not some wifty inherent "right
of the people", it's a privilege. And to gain
that privilege come certain requirements and
responsibilites.


Yes, reasonable requirements and responsibilities. The FCC is not going to
change those requirements just because you and perhaps a few others want to
exclude what you call "dumbed downed" people. Instead, you'll have to make a
factual, not just rhetorical, link between those people and specific
problems. You'll also have to establish that your remedy (stiffer license
exams) will resolve those specific problems. Until then, all you're doing is
blowing around a lot of hot air and slandering fellow hams.


If the "American public" is not up for meeting
the requirements and responsibilties which come
with a ham license they can still go to 27
Mhz, FRS and MURS. Which is why those services
were created.


Man, you're talking about the American people as if they were some kind of
minor regard in this country. I sincerely hope the FCC never shares that
attitude.


And when it's all said and done we're back to
the Cheerios syndrome. When was the last time
you know of when a wannabe ham said "geez,
don't dumb down the tests any more, they'll
TOO easy for me . . "


A wannabe ham is a person who, by definition, has never taken the license
exams. How can anyone who hasn't taken the exams possibly comment on their
content?


Right. I support keeping the bar at it's current
level. I oppose lowering the bar to a lower level
as you suggest. That's the way it is.


Excuse me? Would you please show me where I have EVER even suggested the
possibility of "lowering the bar" when it comes to the written tests? With
the exception of the code tests, I have repeated said throughout this
thread, and elsewhere, that I fully support the current license
requirements. Instead, I have simply said I don't support raising that bar
solely to exclude others. Now, if you can show me how raising that bar is
necessary for Ham Radio (not just to exclude others), we'll talk.


You can put that in bank right now. There is
nothing evil about evenly-applied discrimination.
It's everywhere around us, in zoning plans, in
the bases for your compensation and perks on the
job, in the privileges accorded holders of the
various classes of ham licensees, endless list.
Don't look now Dwight but discrimination is the
underlying engine which drives capitalist
democracies.


Zoning laws, job policies, and ham licenses, all serve a legitimate
purpose. Policies or rules designed solely to exclude don't.


Just when and where did I state any such BS please?


A question has a question mark on the end, Brian. That question mark was
on the end of my sentence.


Here's your opportunity to parade out your list of
high-end techo nocodes with skills like those I've
picked as examples have.


I don't judge or sort out people based on their code ability, Brian.
Therefore, I'll pass on your invitation.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

That's not how I read it. It's about what every
ham should know and be tested on.


Read back over Brian's messages in this thread. His stated goal is to
exclude "dumbed down" people with stiffer license exams. He has given no
real evidence to suggest that doing so would improve ham radio or further
the purpose and goals of ham radio. Likewise, he has offered no real
evidence to suggest that his proposal would solve any specific problem with
ham radio. Instead, he has focused solely on the idea of excluding people.


But who decides what requirements are excess? It
all comes down to opinion.


The FCC does. All we can do is agree or disagree with their decisions.
However, if one disagrees with their decisions and wants others to agree
with that (or wants the FCC to change their decisions), it is obviously up
to that person to give solid reasons why. Brian's stated reasons are to
exclude 'dumbed down" people, without any real evidence to back that up. I
just don't think that is a solid reason.


What bad things would happen if the tests were
"beefed up", particularly the written tests for
the General and Extra?

Perhaps the idea of dropping the code test would
get a lot more acceptance if it were coupled to
better written testing. But it's not - in fact,
the written testing keeps getting trimmed.


I disagree. The written tests have been "beefed up" when necessary. For
example, the Technician and other license exams were "beefed up" several
years ago to put more emphasis on RF exposure levels and RF environmental
safety practices. There was a need for those changes. I just don't see a
need to "beef up" the license exams just for the sake of "beefing up" the
license exams, especially when there is no real benefit in doing so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes:



(Len Over 21) wrote

I for one
was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my
Novice ticket.

Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk.

So how was it you're still so uninformed that you never heard of an
unlicensed
(or underlicensed) operator working a ham radio station under the supervision
of a control operator who has the appropriate license? Hmmmm?
So your reading didn't really teach you all that much about ham radio?
Whatta surprise!

Kellie was describing what he did 52 years ago at age 14,
BEFORE HE WAS LICENSED.

Ayup, and it was 100% legal. As you've belatedly become well aware ya
PUTZ. But ya stuck yer hoof in yer mouth once again thru gross
ignorance and boxed yerself in with no way out so the rants go on.


Now YOU PROVE - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that Kellie was
telling the ABSOLUTE TRUTH back then.

As soon as YOU PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that you ever set foot
in Japan. I've had my doubts all along . . .


43 transmitters with RF output ranging from 1 to 40 KW takes up
about 200 feet of interior space if arranged in two lines. The antenna
field required a 1 x 2 mile former airfield to hold them all.

I saw the list of "countries" you *allegedly* "worked" with all those
kilowatts and rhombics. Not exactly a sterling performance. I mean
holy cow in that same timeframe I worked every continent on the globe
several times over with my 0.05 Kw ARC-5 TX into a wire strung from my
bedroom window to a tree down the yard. I dunno what yer problem
was/is but if I were you I wouldn't spend much time bragging about my
HF operating exploits, they're notably lame.

And OhYez, I have written proof that I did what I claim I did with
that ARC-5 and the wire.


LHA

w3rv

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

You're right. I think that all should be issued
Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing
requirements should be changed to "Utilization
Encounters" that no longer have test questions,
but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions
designed to enhance the self esteem of the
Amateur Radio operator. The different grading
of the tickets would no longer be based on
knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels
about themselves.



Well, responding in an equally sarcastic manner, you're perfectly free to
think that if you wish, Mike. However, I think we should have reasonable
requirements that are neither too simplistic nor too difficult. Those
requirements should address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio
without attempts to use them to unfairly exclude others. In my opinion, the
current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur
Radio, while the code test does not.

What are those "realistic needs and goals", Dwight?


We've already proven that no test at all is needed to get on HF and run
some fair amount of power. Lot's of CB'ers do it all the time. It
doesn't matter that it is illegal to do, that isn't the point. The point
is that it didn't take any kind of formalized education or testing
process for them to get on the air without doing damage to themselves.

But is that what we want? Some people do want just that. Interestingly
enough, they applaud the likely elimination of the Morse code test, and
will probably agitate for more. (or less depending on how you look at it)

That is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to buckle down and get
things under control.



Dwight, it all depends on what you mean by
unnecessary.



Necessary and reasonable, both words used throughout my comments, are
pretty much self-explanatory. If that doesn't satisfy you, read the
paragraph I wrote above.

Your definition of necessary and reasonable. You should be trumpeting
that from the rafters at every chance. Because some others have a quite
different definition.


This is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to take up their
leadership role NOW. My definition of necessary and reasonable include a
test for Morse code. So all the other PCTA's and myself are immediately
marginalized and irrelevant.



CB'ers are on the air on HF. Many run power, illegal
or not. And no one has taken a test to do that.

This proves that * you don't need any test at all* to
successfully run a station at HF frequencies.



But can one do so safely and in compliance with the rules and regulations?
Of course not. And that is why the actions of that CB'er is illegal. And it
is also why that example is not applicable to ham radio.



And reasonable requirements can be anything from a
difficult test to no test at all. just depends on
who is doing the reasoning.



The FCC is doing the reasoning. We're simply agreeing or disagreeing with
that reasoning.



The ARS can be what we make of it. All is arbitrary,
and we have to start with an idea of how adroit we
want the typical member to be and go from there. From
EE to CB.



In that case, why stop with just excluding "dumbed down" people. There is
just as many reasons to write rules to exclude the poor. 'Those people'
can't buy good radios and the cheap radios owned by 'those people' can cause
problems on the ham frequencies. Clearly, we should write rules to get rid
of anyone who earns less than $50k. When you start down the path of
intentionally excluding others, it has the tendency to go much further then
you ever intended.

Where on earth did you come up with that one, Dwight? I'd never say
such a thing, and I'm a little disappointed you would try to inject that
here.

Note that there is a big difference between expecting that a person has
some level of adroitness and denying them because of some external and
irrelevant factor.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:


In my opinion, the
current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur
Radio, while the code test does not.




Why of course Dwight! Tha makes the test requirements easy and non-existant.
What more could you want?


There seems to be a bigger picture that the NCTA's are having trouble
grasping.

After their victory, their people - in this case, *all* those who
oppose Morse code testing are coming out of the woodwork. And they seem
to be having problems recognizing their new resposibility. Dwight and I
are not too different on the requirements to become a Ham. The problem
is that a lot of other people in his camp have some drastically
different ideas of what is realistic or reasonable.

Those are the people who need to be reigned in.

Question is, are the NCTA's up to the task?


- Mike KB3EIA -