Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#401
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote Lacking any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact. Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts." 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either." "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." .. |
#402
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote What about vanity calls? No change from current rules. That means Class As could get a call from any callsign block. But what about Class Bs? Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each subject area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three. I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test. No, my vision for the Class B test is similar to the original Novice exam. OK Some basic stuff to ensure the applicant has an acquaintence with the subject matter, and not heavily weighted in any single area, and not such a tight screen that it blocks those with 'casual interest'. That makes sense and agrees with the stated goals. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#403
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Not according to Hans' answer to the above question. Hans' answer is not in his proposal. OK, fine. In fact, a lot of what Hans has said in this newsgroup is not in the proposal. It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way. Instead, he just seems to be making up answers as he goes along. Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement with the stated goals and philosophy of his proposal. I haven't found a single case where Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal thing. Hans has suggested his idea to FCC at least twice - but always in the form of comments to others' proposals. Seems to me it would make sense for him to submit it to FCC and get an RM number, just like the other 14 petitions. He could just take the various answers he's given here and work them into the proposal (to answer the same questions which are bound to be asked by FCC and commenters) and ship the expanded proposal to FCC. Even though I disagree with some parts of his proposal, it seems to me that such a formal submission is the next step if Hans is serious about it. And I think he is. Plus it's good to see a proposal that at least tries to address the situation as a whole, rather than simply trying to slap another patch on the 1951 system. btw, some of the concepts in Hans' proposal are also part of the KL7CC "21st Century" proposal - like the very-easy-to-get entry license with a low power limit. But Hans had those ideas first! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#404
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference, other than name, between a Class A and the Extra? All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed. If the only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing? I'd do it just to avoid having to renew. Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for full-privileges ham licenses. Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference in their database if that is all it is? Just a name. For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and General even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General privileges. For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the amateur radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC). So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today. -- I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of the main goals of Hans' proposal: 1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license 2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so that new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except high power transmitters. 3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical knowledge and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable time 4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three tests, anyway) Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all pretty good goals? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#405
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"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. Can you provied statistical data on that Qwight? 8^) -couldn't help meself! - Mike KB3EIA - |
#406
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "JJ" wrote in message ... 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. Negative. I've already stated that high risk levels of danger are justification for NOT trying something. Such a risk level overrides the potential of liking or disliking something. You just are NOT reading what I write. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#407
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "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/ You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion that it is a fact does not make it so. And even in casual discussions, I've seen many statements challenged and the proponent asked to prove it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#408
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Dwight Stewart" wrote Lacking any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact. Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts." 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either." "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." Some great quotes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#409
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#410
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest? My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took the new test. The FCC would not dare to do anything to alter the "status" of current Amateur Extra-class licensees, particularly those who attained that class in the Pre-Restructuring Era. We've already made it to the top, under a significantly more comprehensive and challenging set of testing requirements, including Morse code tests at speeds up to 20 WPM. Uncle Charlie won't muck around with that, considering it is the white-hot resentment of the General-class licensees of the Pre-Incentive Licensing Era which started the whole debate over licensing standards in the first place. Had the FCC taken the simple precaution of "grandfathering" those hams to the then-new Extra class, we may not be having this debate now. Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with honoring that. The truth be known, I give relatively little thought to the fact that I am the holder of an Amateur Extra-class license. About the only time I've ever brought up the subject was to turn up the heat on the whining no-coders. The hardest license class for me to achieve was my Novice, which only came after 14 years wasted in my unwillingness to knuckle down and learn the Morse code. Once I overcame that personal character flaw, everything fell into place with surprising ease. As far as "honoring" Extra-class amateurs who did it "the old way" is concerned, that would probably not be an issue except for the previously mentioned Inceltive Licensing debacle, and the fact that CB Radio had the effect of "consumerizing" personal radio communications to the point where a demand was created for that capability. Now, in these days of cell phones and "wireless" digital everything, amateur radio itself is all but irrelevant. So, in a way, I guess there may now be some point in "honoring" those of us who reached the pinnacle of the amateur radio licensing structure, under the "old order" set of standards. Perhaps it could serve to show newer hams what they have lost in the sense of true status attained, and the good feeling of individual accomplishment that it brings. This may possibly cause the trend to again reverse itself, and create a demand for a return to a set of licensing standards which reward increased knowledge and operating skills with greater operating privileges. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |