"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
news

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that
someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc.
I
think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to
decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter)
without
any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or
wouldn't, like that I've never tried:

parachuting
picking up clothes at a cleaners
dropping off babies to daycare
raising grandchildren
holding snot in my hand
bungee jumping
parasailing
rough sex
working in a foundry
getting a tattoo
being bald
all kinds of food
spelunking
building a computer...or anything for that matter
being a man

Add countless other things to that list.

If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without
ever
having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like
CW
without having any real experience with it.

Kim W5TIT



I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply
because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end
I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Your mileage may vary, Dee, but I *know* I would not like any of the items I
listed. And, I cannot believe anyone would do something (outside of
employment that is) because someone insisted on it--most of all a spouse or
family member--who should know far better than to "insist" on anything from
me that I don't wish to do. Nor would I insist of anything from them.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:


Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such
awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A. Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Since you are aware that nobody collects
such data, simple common sense should
have prevented you from making such an
unprovable statement in the first place.


No, you misunderstand my position. I'm not backing away from my statement.
I still feel it is entirely accurate and therefore fact. However, as you
well know, I can't prove it because nobody gathers such statistics. But that
alone doesn't change the accuracy of a statement. There is a lot of truth
and facts in this world that isn't backed up by statistics.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Nope. I disagree, but only because I approach
this venue exactly in the same manner as Dee.
I like debating and there are few people who can
do it artfully. But, I don't think I've ever expected
anyone else to approach it the same way I do.
However, to engage one in discourse almost
dictates that you must be willing to communicate
at their level and in their manner. (snip)


Then we all need to get together and establish specific rules for debate
in this newsgroup. And everyone should be made aware of those rules to
insure an even playing field. Without that, screaming about rules and
procedures is a little absurd, don't you think? So lets talk about common
debate rules. Every debate I've seen allows for opinion - even opinions
about what is a fact when that is not clear. Since nobody gathers statistics
for what I said, there are no facts to prove or disprove my statement -
there is only opinion either way. Therefore, since everyone involved has now
admitted to knowing that nobody gathers such statistics, my statement would
be acceptable even under standard debate rules and any challenge following
that could only be interpreted as an attempt to sidetrack the debate (which,
I believe, is not proper debate procedure).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Since you are aware that nobody collects
such data, simple common sense should
have prevented you from making such an
unprovable statement in the first place.


No, you misunderstand my position. I'm not backing away from my
statement.
I still feel it is entirely accurate and therefore fact. However, as you
well know, I can't prove it because nobody gathers such statistics. But
that
alone doesn't change the accuracy of a statement. There is a lot of truth
and facts in this world that isn't backed up by statistics.

FEELING that something is true or false doesn't make it so. You have made
an assertion that you claim to be fact therefore it IS up to you, even in a
casual discussion to back it up with data. If that data has not been
collected, then you cannot make such an assertion until either you find a
data source or collect that data with valid statistical methods.

No one in my experience outside of ham radio knew anything about Morse code
except possibly its name. Therefore I could state that most people have not
had enough exposure to Morse code to make an educated decision on whether
they would like it or not. However since I know that this is not sufficient
data to provide proof of my opinion, I do not state it as a fact. Although
my "fact" is just as valid and accurate as your "fact". This is why
opinions are not allowed as proof of anything.

Unless you have statistical data on this, your statement is an OPINION and
nothing more.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote:

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have
something to add but so far you've only been a
detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.


Didn't you say the proposal has already been submitted? If so, there
really isn't anything that can be added and therefore any further discussion
is pointless.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

Not according to Hans' answer to the
above question.


Hans' answer is not in his proposal. In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal. Instead, he just seems to be
making up answers as he goes along.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Alun" wrote:

So maybe Class A (Extra/Advanced), B (General)
and C (Tech/Novice)?


Or how about no reference to class in the license names at all - such as
"Temporary" and "Operator" licenses?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dee D. Flint wrote:




I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I have never tried drinking lye and I know I wouldn't
like it. By your reasoning I should try it as I might like dying.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

FEELING that something is true or false
doesn't make it so. You have made an
assertion that you claim to be fact
therefore it IS up to you, even in a casual
discussion to back it up with data. (snip)


Nonsense. I've never seen anybody asked to provide statistical data in a
casual discussion.


Unless you have statistical data on this,
your statement is an OPINION and
nothing more.


No kidding!!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along? Lacking
any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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