IN A QUOTE FROM ANOTHER THREAD...

Message 65 in thread
From: N2EY )
Subject: The 14 Petitions

View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: 2003-11-27 05:58:53 PST

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 It's been
archived here, Hans, and remains an "on-the-fringe" concept, but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.

END OF QUOTE...

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become producetive hams". UNQUOTE

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

We'd be better off letting Michael Jackson be their sand lot
supervisor! ! !

While I am a big proponent of CLOSING the question pools and
thereby requiring potential licensees to actually LEARN something,
including regulations, even our present system of open pools and rote
memorization will ingrain SOME understanding of the most of the basic
rules of the service!

Of course I can't help but believe this is another W5YI
initiative to help perpetuate his "publishing" business, especially
since it will soon lose part of it's subject matter (code tapes).

One more new license would be yet another "text" he could get
around to selling.

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become producetive hams". UNQUOTE

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

We'd be better off letting Michael Jackson be their sand lot
supervisor! ! !

While I am a big proponent of CLOSING the question pools and
thereby requiring potential licensees to actually LEARN something,
including regulations, even our present system of open pools and rote
memorization will ingrain SOME understanding of the most of the basic
rules of the service!

Of course I can't help but believe this is another W5YI
initiative to help perpetuate his "publishing" business, especially
since it will soon lose part of it's subject matter (code tapes).

One more new license would be yet another "text" he could get
around to selling.

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.


But.....But.....But Steve!!!! No one could have written that! Didn't
they tell you? No one wants amateur radio simplified! Just because we've
seen it written on the web, and now in CQ magazine, no one *really*
feels that way! (tongue in cheek mode off)

I guess this is one of those cases where they say "I wasn't sayin', I
was just sayin'"............

Oh them lumberjacks, chippin' away.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message t...
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become producetive hams". UNQUOTE

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

We'd be better off letting Michael Jackson be their sand lot
supervisor! ! !
Stop picking on the King odf Pop, it's not fair:

http://www.geocities.com/tom5515/frame.htm

Actually, it's kinfd of outrageous, wasn't Hugh Hefner a target of
Nixon's Justice Department in the 1970's --i think this is equally
political.

Mike Walton wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message t...

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:


I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become producetive hams". UNQUOTE

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

We'd be better off letting Michael Jackson be their sand lot
supervisor! ! !

Stop picking on the King odf Pop, it's not fair:

http://www.geocities.com/tom5515/frame.htm

Actually, it's kinfd of outrageous, wasn't Hugh Hefner a target of
Nixon's Justice Department in the 1970's --i think this is equally
political.


DUDE! I didn't write one thing that you qouted! Gotta get your
attributes correct....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message t...
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.


But.....But.....But Steve!!!! No one could have written that! Didn't
they tell you? No one wants amateur radio simplified! Just because we've
seen it written on the web, and now in CQ magazine, no one *really*
feels that way! (tongue in cheek mode off)

I guess this is one of those cases where they say "I wasn't sayin', I
was just sayin'"............

Oh them lumberjacks, chippin' away.

It makes me sick to say this, but LoosieBroocie may ahve been
closer to the truth than we care to admit!

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message t...
Mike Walton wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message t...

We'd be better off letting Michael Jackson be their sand lot
supervisor! ! !

Stop picking on the King odf Pop, it's not fair:

http://www.geocities.com/tom5515/frame.htm

Actually, it's kinfd of outrageous, wasn't Hugh Hefner a target of
Nixon's Justice Department in the 1970's --i think this is equally
political.


DUDE! I didn't write one thing that you qouted! Gotta get your
attributes correct....


Correct-a-mundo..I did!

I was a big MJ fan until he started the plastic/whitewash crap.
A "nose job" or tummy tuck notwithstanding, you expect that from
Hollywierd...But I absolutely can't stand to look at him anymore.
He's nauseating.

Also, he's where others have "evolved" in thier art, he's not put
out one decent thing in 10 years. Too bad. He cudda been a
contender.

As for being a "justice department" target, the charges came from
private individuals...IF he's a target of anything (assuming for a
second he really is innocent) he's the target of golddiggers and
charaltans. Otherwise I think he's probably getting what he deserves.

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

I was a big MJ fan until

I thought he was going to be bigger than Elvis. Now he is a joke. Sad.

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

What did they call it?

Is it the same article that's on the AL7FS website ("Amateur Radio for
the 21st Century"?

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

They envision replacing the existing Tech with the new license class.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become productive hams". UNQUOTE

Yep. A very bad idea.

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

Heck, how can they even be *legal* if they don't know the rules?

And if we're supposed to accept a signed statement from a 12 year old
(the article repeatedly talks about aiming the license at the 6th
grade level) as proof of rules compliance, why do the rest of the
license classes require actually passing tests?

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

I don't *think* so!

You may wish to read my rebuttal to that paper, posted here in 3
parts. Perhaps I should send it to CQ as well....

While I am a big proponent of CLOSING the question pools and
thereby requiring potential licensees to actually LEARN something,
including regulations, even our present system of open pools and rote
memorization will ingrain SOME understanding of the most of the basic
rules of the service!

Exactly. And of all subjects that should be in the tests, the
rules/regs are #1 priority.

Of course I can't help but believe this is another W5YI
initiative to help perpetuate his "publishing" business, especially
since it will soon lose part of it's subject matter (code tapes).

He sold that business.

One more new license would be yet another "text" he could get
around to selling.

He's not in that business any more.

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.

Actually the basic concept boils down to revamping the old Novice for
the 21st century. Fine - let's do just that, call it the Novice, and
use it as the entry level instead of the Tech.

If it's the same article, it has a few good ideas and some very bad
ones.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Brian) wrote in message om...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

I was a big MJ fan until

I thought he was going to be bigger than Elvis. Now he is a joke. Sad.

FINALLY! Something we can completely agree on!

This guy WAS one heck of an entertainer, and I even enjoy
listening to his music on the radio. But what's with the face...?!?!
I've seen more human-looking scarecrows!

73

Steve, K4YZ

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

What did they call it?

Is it the same article that's on the AL7FS website ("Amateur Radio for
the 21st Century"?

That's the one. It's in "CQ's" OP-ED" column.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

They envision replacing the existing Tech with the new license class.

Same silliness as Stewart Teaze. Yet another "Colt" or whatever
class license Stewie dreamt up.


See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become productive hams". UNQUOTE

Yep. A very bad idea.

To say teh least.

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

Heck, how can they even be *legal* if they don't know the rules?

And if we're supposed to accept a signed statement from a 12 year old
(the article repeatedly talks about aiming the license at the 6th
grade level) as proof of rules compliance, why do the rest of the
license classes require actually passing tests?

We already have literally thousands of examples of elementary and
middle school kids passing not only the Technician, but the General
and the Extra.

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

I don't *think* so!

You may wish to read my rebuttal to that paper, posted here in 3
parts. Perhaps I should send it to CQ as well....

Please do. I sent an e mail to "CQ" and routed copies to the
three authors. I actually got a very nice response from KL7CC.

I doubt Maia will ever respond.

While I am a big proponent of CLOSING the question pools and
thereby requiring potential licensees to actually LEARN something,
including regulations, even our present system of open pools and rote
memorization will ingrain SOME understanding of the most of the basic
rules of the service!

Exactly. And of all subjects that should be in the tests, the
rules/regs are #1 priority.

AB-SA-LOOT-A-MUNDO!

Of course I can't help but believe this is another W5YI
initiative to help perpetuate his "publishing" business, especially
since it will soon lose part of it's subject matter (code tapes).

He sold that business.

So I found out, and I responded to KL7CC with an "I stand
corrected".

One more new license would be yet another "text" he could get
around to selling.

He's not in that business any more.

As I was saying...!

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.

Actually the basic concept boils down to revamping the old Novice for
the 21st century. Fine - let's do just that, call it the Novice, and
use it as the entry level instead of the Tech.

If it's the same article, it has a few good ideas and some very bad
ones.

I am all for a GOOD "Novice" class proposal as long as it
represents some RESPONSIBLE ideas. Deleting rules and regulations and
safety issues is NOT it!

Unfortunately it's the FCC's past track record to latch on to
some really bad ideas...

73

Steve, K4YZ