In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid
way of evaluating the validity of an assertion.

It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the
result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false.

So far the only people I see "making fun" of Jim Miccolis are
those who cannot adequately argue the topic being debated, Hans.

That says it all right there, Steve. Ridicule the messenger rather than deal
with the message.

There ARE those who make an arguement that the Amateur Radio
license should be nothing more than an expensive permit. It's been
archived here, Hans, and remains an "on-the-fringe" concept, but worse
ideas have made it into law.

Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other
requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests
conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements,
etc.

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the
Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning.

Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to
get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a
Federally mandated welfare/support program?

Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams
learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license.

We are
effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements,

I think you mean "all"...

so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!

More important - how can those arguments be countered?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself
not the testing. So the last two sentences in
the above paragraph are not relevant to this
discussion.


Isn't this overall discussion about the code test?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote


True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not
renew their licenses.

In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit",
renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the
novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the
original Novice license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Since the uninterested would generally let it lapse anyway, it's not worth
the effort to change to change the rules to have a 10 year non-renewable
"learner's permit."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself
not the testing. So the last two sentences in
the above paragraph are not relevant to this
discussion.


Isn't this overall discussion about the code test?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

My response was to your statement that code itself was unnecessary and I
made that clear that I was addressing that issue only. You elected to
attempt to take it back to the code test. Taking it back to the code test
does not refute the necessity of code itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc.
are all non-necessities. (snip)


Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them. Morse code should join those modes
in that regard.


In fact, except for the most basic of rules
and regulations, your argument leads to the
inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service at this point to mandate *any*
learning through a testing requirement.

Can you prove otherwise?


What is there to prove? Isn't that exactly the intent of the license
exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and
regulations, and so on. When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a
school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when
they're handed a ham license. That license exams (and licenses) are simply
entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes
with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading,
practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that). The FCC has
never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams,
and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important
hams have done so).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's
Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service
is an expectation of technical learning. (snip)


Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service,
not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the
license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so
they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually
do.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

..... any mode needed to facilitate that would
also not be a necessity.

I'll be participating in the CQWW CW RadioSport
event this weekend from W0SOC, and later from
W0AIH. It is a necessity that I know Morse in
order to participate.


From the perspective of an FCC license requirement, is it necessary for
you to participate in that event?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit",
renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the
novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the
original Novice license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Since the uninterested would generally let it lapse anyway, it's not worth
the effort to change to change the rules to have a 10 year non-renewable
"learner's permit."

Dee,

It's not just about "interest" but about "qualifications".

Hans thinks that *all* hams should be qualified (eventually) at at least the
Extra class written level. The purpose of his proposed LP license is to give
newbies a sample of what ham radio is like, and a 10-year opportunity to learn
enough to get a full-privileges license. Just like the old 1 and 2 year
one-to-a-customer Novice licenses did.

IOW, upgrade or leave the amateur bands. Hans' proposal is that simple. LPs
would have an 8 year window of opportunity to do so.

Part of the concept is the idea that if somebody can't hack the Extra test -
for whatever reason - before their 10 year LP license runs out, too bad, game
over, thanks for playing. Of course at any future time after the LP license
runs out, such a person could take the Extra written and get the license.

The idea is that "LPs" are not really qualified hams - the license class would
exist so that they could become qualified.

Of course the only difference in privs would be power level - LPs would be
limited to 50 watts out. No word on vanity calls, tho.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

snippage

As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid
way of evaluating the validity of an assertion.

It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the
result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false.

Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life.
And many ideas do not fare well!

more snippage

Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other
requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests
conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements,
etc.


As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the
Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning.


Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to
get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a
Federally mandated welfare/support program?

Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams
learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license.


We are
effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements,


I think you mean "all"...


so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!


More important - how can those arguments be countered?

IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how
much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you
and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what
Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live
with it.

We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills
needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the
bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem!

When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what
they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting
priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong.

We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our
arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other
side has to give.


We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard
we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the
outcome. Entropy will take over.

We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go
away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by
its elimination. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a
dramatic reduction in skill level. They also need to realize that there
are people out there who want even less in the way of admission
requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a
naive statement.

Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES
or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends,
within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no
impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you
recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk
button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply
"get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself
not the testing. So the last two sentences in
the above paragraph are not relevant to this
discussion.



Isn't this overall discussion about the code test?

The code test is part of it, but overall it is about many of the
technical issues that will shape where the ARS goes in the future.

- Mike KB3EIA -