In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.


Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.


(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:54:25 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

I was at a hearing once where a shipboard operator was accused of
slugging the captain in the radio room. The other operator on duty
was being questioned as a witness, and was asked "did you see or hear
Mr. X have a fist-fight with the captain?". His reply: "when I sit
and copy the telegraph code that's all I concentrate on".

Not being a "morseman" as others call it, I admire someone who can
do that sort of concentration. (I've done it on 'phone, though.)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

Tell that to the regulars. :-) :-) :-)

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative.

Gosh yes, heap big chief. :-)

That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

Tsk, tsk, the nerve of some who wish to defy a radio god. :-)

LHA

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative. That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I presume there is evidence that
Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

Of course there isn't any evidence of that, Mike. As I said earlier, Hans'
proposal appears to be a solution looking for a problem (an answer looking
for a question). Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

...that's how the incentive license plan got started... :-)

LHA

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

WHAT "logic" heap big chief?

All you've done so far is to ISSUE ORDERS OF THE DAY. No "logic,"
simply a set of demands which are labeled "TRUTH."

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC.

Fine. Convince the Commission you are god.

I'll be waiting, heap big chief. :-)

LHA

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.

Sounds like Hans is promoting a "BAA" (Bachelor of Amateur Arts)
degree diploma in lieu of a license. :-)

BAA...say I. :-)

(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)

The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

Incorrect, Dwight. There MUST be a MANDATE to conform to the
wishes of the "QCAO" and their needs to be the CONTROLLING
elements in amateur radio activities.

In this case, "option IS a failure."

MANDATE. Control. Issue orders. Comply. Conform.

LHA

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose.

Two points:

POINT A
------------

This "unenforceable" mantra is a weak argument, which does not gain strength
by the repetition.

Of course it's enforceable, or at least just as enforceable as power levels
have ever been. "Unenforceable" is a complete cop out. If power level is
not enforceable at 50W, then it's not enforceable at 2.5W, 25W, 50W ERP,
100W, 200W, or 1.5KW, all of which are power currently exist in FCC Amateur
Radio regulations.

Then WHY have it?

Simply ISSUING ORDERS is a stupid idea without some reasoning
behind it.

So...why is the "maximum power" under your plan 50 W instead of
100 W?

Show your work.


POINT B
------------

That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold.

Well, if YOU said it, it must have a "real purpose." :-)

Purpose #1) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which we can limit power to a level which FCC has stated is safe for both
the user and unknowing passers-by.

What do you mean "we," white man?

I think you think you think more than the OET and the IEEE and the
USAF and the ANSI.

Purpose #2) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which the power level minimizes the unwanted side-effects of granting
broad spectrum access to relatively underqualified operators. Now, before
you spin up your rotors about "but QRP operators work around the world",
bear in mind that most of the "bad" signals heard on HF are the result of
ignorant operators trying to run a lot of power, and the consequent
splatter, flat-topping, birdies, over-compression, etc. On the other hand,
I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station. In further support of
the idea is the fact that all these 100W-class rigs you keep harping on are
running at near their designed-in upper capability, making them more likely
to become purveyors of all the crappy-signal symptoms I just talked about.
At 50W they are much less likely to be straining their design specifications
and consequently radiating cleaner signals. In the hands of even a QCAO
life-member it would be hard to splatter/chirp/over-modulate when you're
running at half the design limit of the rig.

Of course. A "learner's permit." As if the ONLY radio emitters in
the world came from amateur radio stations. :-)

Geez...for a work manager supposedly with a degree you sure don't
know much about equipment that can go wrong, be misadjusted, and
lots of other little nasties lurking inside electronics boxes. Tsk, tsk.

"In the hands of you QCAO members," the "expertise" in radio
matters went out the window if you think that RF power output is the
ONLY thing causing splatter/chirp/over-modulation (etc.).

Someone do something nasty in your wheaties this morning? :-)

LHA

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.

"Dramatic?" :-)

Okay, I'm sure there is great "drama" in having to get together the
requisite cash to go out and buy NEW equipment so as to meet
the the NEW RF power output levels.

Meanwhile, ol Hans can fire up his 2.5 KW rig (with higher drive
level input) and be as safe as a bug in a rug...

The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things like signal purity, etc. 97.307(a) thru (e) come to
mind. Personally, I don't believe that your (misnamed) Technician
qualification examination is adequate to ensure that you can carry out that
mandate.

Heaven forbid that anyone offend any "QCAO" members who hold
title, fief, and divine rule over amateurspace. :-)

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

"Technicians" are harming Hans' concept of what is "harmful." :-)

Hans hasn't shown his work proving that 50 W is okay while 100 W
is "harmful."

But...he still thinks the first recognized 1906 voice transmission was
done with a spark-gap transmitter...and that all modern cellphones
power-up by talking to cell sites automatically. :-)

LHA